Lawsuit: Adjourned Dearev v. Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14

[dearev]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dearev
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72 (Defendant 1)
Alexandria News (Defendant 2)

Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On February 3, 2025, the Defendant (1) published an article through their news channel, Alexandria News, which contained various symbols (attached below). This article was posted in the #news channel of the DC Discord server. A few minutes later, the Defendant sent a follow-up message.

In this second message, the Defendant stated:
"So, In these last days, we whered posting weird news, but after this one dearev (chief of journalism) posted recently, we are firing him, And also, DONT TRUST THIS SCAMMER"

This statement is incorrect due to several reasons:

During my time working at Alexandria News, I did not hold the position of Chief of Journalism. Instead, I served as their legal advisor.
I did not, nor do I have the ability to, publish articles, as I was never granted access to the relevant webhook or channel.
The Defendants referred to me as a "scammer." The term "scammer" is defined as "a person who commits fraud or participates in a dishonest scheme." I have never engaged in fraudulent activities or participated in any dishonest schemes.
Furthermore, the Defendants’ false accusations have caused me significant emotional distress and may have adversely affected my professional reputation, potentially resulting in the loss of clients for my business.

I. PARTIES
i. Plura72 - Defendant 1
ii. Alexandria News - Defendant 2
iii. Dearev - Plaintiff

II. FACTS

On February 3, 2025, the Defendants published an article through their news channel, Alexandria News, which contained various symbols.
The Defendants made a follow-up article defaming me and causing emotional distress.
The Defendants published the false statements in a publicly accessible channel (#news), making the statements visible to various users.
Due to the Defendants’ statement labeling the Plaintiff as a “scammer,” the Plaintiff has faced reputational harm, including but not limited to loss of credibility, potential clients, and professional standing.
The phrasing of the Defendants’ statement (“DONT TRUST THIS SCAMMER”) suggests an intentional effort to damage the Plaintiff’s credibility.
The Defendants did not contact the Plaintiff before making these allegations publicly, denying the Plaintiff an opportunity to clarify or refute the claims in a professional setting.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(i) Defamation - The Defendants intentionally, without review, publicly made false defamatory accusations against the Plaintiff.
(ii) Negligence - The Defendants neglected to consider any further damage that publicly publishing the article could cause.
(iii) Misinformation - The Defendants published untrue information on the #news channel, misinforming others.

1. The Defendants, operating as a news organization, had a duty to ensure the accuracy of their statements before publication. By failing to verify the claims against the Plaintiff and publishing unverified statements in a public setting, they breached this duty, causing reputational and emotional harm to the Plaintiff.

(iv) Emotional Damages - The Defendants’ actions furthermore caused emotional damage to the Plaintiff.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendants:

i. A public apology from Alexandria News.
ii. $10,000 in reparations.

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 3rd day of February 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of dearev v plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Present, your honor. Dragon Law representing.

 

[ko531]

Present, your honor. Dragon Law representing.

please provide proof of representation

 

[Alexander P. Love]

please provide proof of representation

Right, I definitely go representing people who don’t want my representation, with my 35 other cases.

 

[ko531]

Right, I definitely go representing people who don’t want my representation, with my 35 other cases.

View attachment 51566

Alexanderlove this is a warning for your snark comment. You should know as much as anyone with your 35 cases that it is common practice to require proof of representation.

You also have 72 hours to provide your answer to complaint

 

[Plura72]

first time being sued

 

[ko531]

first time being sued

Pleas refrain from speaking out of turn. You have a lawyer, and I would advise that you use him if you need something said.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that he did not commit the actions that the defendant claimed he did. There is no case for any of the claims provided without such evidence.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that he did not commit the actions that the defendant claimed he did. There is no case for any of the claims provided without such evidence.

Your honor, I request to respond to the motion

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that he did not commit the actions that the defendant claimed he did. There is no case for any of the claims provided without such evidence.

Denied

Any motion to dismiss about lack of evidence will have to be presented after discovery. Discovery is the time and place that Evidence is meant to be submitted so to accept any motion of this nature would be premature.

No response was necessary from the plaintiff as any motion of this nature isn't being considered at this time.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your honor, I'd like to request a 72-hour extension on the defendant's answer. I have a number of ongoing real-life obligations preventing me from working on this case.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, I'd like to request a 72-hour extension on the defendant's answer. I have a number of ongoing real-life obligations preventing me from working on this case.

I will grant you a 48-hour extension. If you need more time after that we can address it then.

You have 48 hours from this message to post the answer to complaint.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Answer to Complaint

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

Dearev
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72, Alexandria News
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense affirms that an article was published to Alexandrian News on February 3rd, 2025 containing various symbols, but denies that it was Plura72 who published said article.
2. The defense neither affirms nor denies that "The Defendants made a follow-up article", but denies that said article was defamatory or caused emotional distress.
3. The defense neither affirms nor denies that the publication was made "in a publicly accessible channel (#news), making the statements visible to various users."
4. The defense denies that "Due to the Defendants’ statement labeling the Plaintiff as a “scammer,” the Plaintiff has faced reputational harm, including but not limited to loss of credibility, potential clients, and professional standing."
5. The defense denies that "The phrasing of the Defendants’ statement (“DONT TRUST THIS SCAMMER”) suggests an intentional effort to damage the Plaintiff’s credibility."
6. The defense neither affirms nor denies that "The Defendants did not contact the Plaintiff before making these allegations publicly, denying the Plaintiff an opportunity to clarify or refute the claims in a professional setting."

II. DEFENCES
1. There is no evidence to suggest that Plura72 made the article on February 3rd containing the symbols, rather than Dearev. The burden of proof for the accusation that Plura72 made the article lies with the Plaintiff.
2. "Negligence" and "Misinformation" are not punishable offenses listed anywhere in Redmont law.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that Dearev suffered reputational damage due to any Alexandria News publication.

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 ninth day of February, 2025.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE, FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The defense objects to P-0002. The message in question appears to have been deleted, but viewed nonetheless using a Discord client such as Better Discord. Such clients are strictly against Discord's Terms of Service, and thus the evidence was improperly and illegally collected, and not admissible in court.

 

[dearev]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE, FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The defense objects to P-0002. The message in question appears to have been deleted, but viewed nonetheless using a Discord client such as Better Discord. Such clients are strictly against Discord's Terms of Service, and thus the evidence was improperly and illegally collected, and not admissible in court.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION​

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Defense's objection to P-0002 is without merit. While the original evidence was provided by a third party, the Plaintiff has independently collected a version of the same message prior to its deletion. This independently collected evidence ensures the accuracy and authenticity of the statement in question.

The content of P-0002 remains highly relevant and material to the case, as it demonstrates the defamatory statements made by the Defendants, which have caused harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation. The Plaintiff therefore requests that the objection be overruled, and that both P-0002 and the independently collected evidence, now submitted as Exhibit P-0003, be admitted into evidence.

Attached below is the evidence collected independently by the Plaintiff.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

Plura72 (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Counterplaintiff

v.

Dearev
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Counterplaintiff complains against the Counterdefendant as follows:

The defense is countersuing for legal fees due to the legal expenses incurred by the defendant as a result of the plaintiff's unfound allegations. Dragon Law Firm requests $5,000 in legal fees, the maximum allowed by the LDA.

I. PARTIES
1. Plura72
2. Dearev

II. FACTS
1. Dragon Law Firm requires the maximum amount of legal fees permitted by the law to cover the labor and time required to defend the defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act permits the defense to collect $5,000 or 30% of the value of the case, whichever is higher, for the attorney's time and effort.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5,000 in legal fees.

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 ninth day of February, 2025

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE, FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The defense objects to P-0002. The message in question appears to have been deleted, but viewed nonetheless using a Discord client such as Better Discord. Such clients are strictly against Discord's Terms of Service, and thus the evidence was improperly and illegally collected, and not admissible in court.

As it seems the issue has been fixed I will Sustain this objection, striking P-0002 while P-0003 will be accepted into evidence.

The Counterclaims are recognized, and we will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 72 hours from this message.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court issue a subpoena, requiring the retrival of message logs from the channel in the Alexandrian News discord server used to post News (to #news) to confirm the authorship of the article posted on the 3rd of February 2025

1. The Defendents deny authorship of the defamatory article but provide no alternative explanation for who published it
2. The only was to determine authorship is through message logs on the Alexandria News publishing channel.
3. The logs are highly relevant to the case and necessary to establish whether the Defendent is making false allegations
4. Discovery is now open and subpoenas are a valid tool to obtain critical evidence.
5. The link of alexandrian news discord server is the following: server link

edit: included link

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court issue a subpoena, requiring the retrival of message logs from the channel in the Alexandrian News discord server used to post News (to #news) to confirm the authorship of the article posted on the 3rd of February 2025

1. The Defendents deny authorship of the defamatory article but provide no alternative explanation for who published it
2. The only was to determine authorship is through message logs on the Alexandria News publishing channel.
3. The logs are highly relevant to the case and necessary to establish whether the Defendent is making false allegations
4. Discovery is now open and subpoenas are a valid tool to obtain critical evidence.
5. The link of alexandrian news discord server is the following: server link

edit: included link

Defense requests a response, your honor.

 

[ko531]

Defense requests a response, your honor.

You may.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court issue a subpoena, requiring the retrival of message logs from the channel in the Alexandrian News discord server used to post News (to #news) to confirm the authorship of the article posted on the 3rd of February 2025

1. The Defendents deny authorship of the defamatory article but provide no alternative explanation for who published it
2. The only was to determine authorship is through message logs on the Alexandria News publishing channel.
3. The logs are highly relevant to the case and necessary to establish whether the Defendent is making false allegations
4. Discovery is now open and subpoenas are a valid tool to obtain critical evidence.
5. The link of alexandrian news discord server is the following: server link

edit: included link

Your honor, the motion by the plaintiff makes the assumption that logs of this kind exist at all and that they are available to access for the defense to access. As is, the defense is unable to find any such extant logs, and is thus unable to provide them. Furthermore, the request would likely only serve to invade the privacy of the Alexandria News organization, and would be unlikely to provide significant probative value.
The plaintiff has made the baseless accusation that Plura72 created the article containing the symbols (a claim for which the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff) and is now requesting that the defense produce the evidence that the plaintiff lacks.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court issue a subpoena, requiring the retrival of message logs from the channel in the Alexandrian News discord server used to post News (to #news) to confirm the authorship of the article posted on the 3rd of February 2025

1. The Defendents deny authorship of the defamatory article but provide no alternative explanation for who published it
2. The only was to determine authorship is through message logs on the Alexandria News publishing channel.
3. The logs are highly relevant to the case and necessary to establish whether the Defendent is making false allegations
4. Discovery is now open and subpoenas are a valid tool to obtain critical evidence.
5. The link of alexandrian news discord server is the following: server link

edit: included link

I am granting this motion to compel. I am requesting the defense to post the original message of this news article and user who posted it from their publishing channel and it to be provided in the next 48 hours.

I educated myself on exactly how news articles are posted in #news before ruling and records of the article should exist and should be accessible by the defendant as the own the news company. There is a publishing channel in Alexandrian News's discord that articles are posted in by individual users for the purpose of being put in #news. The only reason a record like this shouldn't exist is if it was deleted purposely.

I do not find validity in the Privacy claim. Both sides have alleged that the other wrote the article with both providing zero evidence. If the claim made by the defense is correct, then they should have no privacy concerns.

 

[dearev]

I am granting this motion to compel. I am requesting the defense to post the original message of this news article and user who posted it from their publishing channel and it to be provided in the next 48 hours.

I educated myself on exactly how news articles are posted in #news before ruling and records of the article should exist and should be accessible by the defendant as the own the news company. There is a publishing channel in Alexandrian News's discord that articles are posted in by individual users for the purpose of being put in #news. The only reason a record like this shouldn't exist is if it was deleted purposely.

I do not find validity in the Privacy claim. Both sides have alleged that the other wrote the article with both providing zero evidence. If the claim made by the defense is correct, then they should have no privacy concerns.

Your honor the plaintiff asks the defense to provide the evidence in a video format of them scrolling the chat for authenticity reasons.

 

[ko531]

Your honor the plaintiff asks the defense to provide the evidence in a video format of them scrolling the chat for authenticity reasons.

Request Denied. I am not going to have them reveal more than necessary

 

[dearev]

Your honor id like to include Inalite as a witness to this case.
According to exhibit P-004 (IMG_3882) submitted now proving that the witness saw the article when it was released.

edit: grammar correction.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The defense submits D-001 in compliance with the compulsion issued by the court. The defense was unable to find any trace regarding the article containing the cryptic symbols, and thus submits the evidence in video format in order to best comply with the court order for relevant evidence.

https://imgur.com/ZEh7ePJ

 

[dearev]

Your honor, as you can see the video does not mention the cryptic symbols at all, indicating that they have been deleted prior to the capture of the evidence, given that fact the plaintiff requests the court to sustain the following motion to remove any suspicion of obstruction of justice and evidence tampering.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a subpoena for the audit logs of the Alexandrian News server due to strong suspicion of evidence tampering and deletion. If the Defendants have not engaged in any wrongdoing, they should have no valid objection to this request.

1. The Plaintiff requests the full audit log of the Alexandrian News server to determine whether any relevant messages were deleted

2. There is substantial suspicion of evidence tampering regarding the removal of the cryptic symbols message, as this message does not appear in the provided video evidence.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that the audit logs are crucial in confirming whether evidence was destroyed.

edit: spelling correction

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your honor, as you can see the video does not mention the cryptic symbols at all, indicating that they have been deleted prior to the capture of the evidence, given that fact the plaintiff requests the court to sustain the following motion to remove any suspicion of obstruction of justice and evidence tampering.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a subpoena for the audit logs of the Alexandrian News server due to strong suspicion of evidence tampering and deletion. If the Defendants have not engaged in any wrongdoing, they should have no valid objection to this request.

1. The Plaintiff requests the full audit log of the Alexandrian News server to determine whether any relevant messages were deleted

2. There is substantial suspicion of evidence tampering regarding the removal of the cryptic symbols message, as this message does not appear in the provided video evidence.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that the audit logs are crucial in confirming whether evidence was destroyed.

edit: spelling correction

The defense requests a response, your honor.

 

[ko531]

The defense requests a response, your honor.

You may.

 

[Kaiserin_]

You may.

Thank you, your honor. Even more so than the last request, the plaintiff's motion to compel evidence would not produce any probative value whatsoever. Discord's audit logs do not keep track of messages that users delete themselves, and none of the bots in the Alexandria News Discord are set up to provide logs of deleted messages. Even if we were to accept the plaintiff's claim at face value, that the defendant went into the news channel and deleted evidence, the audit logs would not provide any record. Similarly, if the plaintiff was the one who sent the article and went in to delete it themselves, as the defense asserts, the audit logs would still not provide any useful evidence.
The only way for the defense to comply with such a motion to compel evidence would be to record the entirety of the Discord server's audit log and provide it to the court, which would not only do absolutely nothing to help the court make a decision in this case, but would be a major invasion of the organization's privacy.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, as you can see the video does not mention the cryptic symbols at all, indicating that they have been deleted prior to the capture of the evidence, given that fact the plaintiff requests the court to sustain the following motion to remove any suspicion of obstruction of justice and evidence tampering.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a subpoena for the audit logs of the Alexandrian News server due to strong suspicion of evidence tampering and deletion. If the Defendants have not engaged in any wrongdoing, they should have no valid objection to this request.

1. The Plaintiff requests the full audit log of the Alexandrian News server to determine whether any relevant messages were deleted

2. There is substantial suspicion of evidence tampering regarding the removal of the cryptic symbols message, as this message does not appear in the provided video evidence.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that the audit logs are crucial in confirming whether evidence was destroyed.

edit: spelling correction

Motion Denied

Either side is claiming that the other wrote this article and deleted it. Discord does not keep track of self-deleted messages. By granting this motion to compel would be to search for something that doesn't exist no matter which side's argument is true.

If discord did keep track of self-deleted messages, then I would be accepting this motion, but this isn't an idea world.

 

[dearev]

EVIDENCE SUBMISSION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits the following additional exhibits before the close of discovery


P-0005 A screenshot confirming that the Plaintiff’s firing was public knowledge and acknowledged by members of the community

P-0006 A message sent in the general chat in the DC discord server, proving that the defamatory article was seen by many and generated reprecussion.

P-0007 A warning issued to Alexandrian News regarding their posting habits and previous behavior.

The plaintiff requests these exhibits to be admitted into evidence.

 

[Kaiserin_]

EVIDENCE SUBMISSION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits the following additional exhibits before the close of discovery


P-0005 A screenshot confirming that the Plaintiff’s firing was public knowledge and acknowledged by members of the community

P-0006 A message sent in the general chat in the DC discord server, proving that the defamatory article was seen by many and generated reprecussion.

P-0007 A warning issued to Alexandrian News regarding their posting habits and previous behavior.

The plaintiff requests these exhibits to be admitted into evidence.

Objection

Relevance

The defense objects to all of the submitted evidence on the grounds of relevance.

P-005: The plaintiff's being fired and any acknowledgement of it being public is not a fact of this case, and took place after the article containing the symbols was posted. The defendant is being sued for defamation, not wrongful termination.
P-006: The screenshot does not showcase what the plaintiff claims, and seems to be an entirely irrelevant message talking about generative AI in relation to the article. This screenshot does not show that "the... article was seen by many" or that it "generated [repercussion]".
P-007: Considering that the plaintiff is no longer a part of Alexandrian News, and was not at the time of the posted warning, this screenshot is not relevant. Staff's opinion on the quality of Alexandrian News publications has no bearing on the allegations being brought against the defendant.

The defense encourages the court to strike this evidence and ensure that all future evidence is related exclusively to the facts of the case.

 

[dearev]

Objection

Relevance

The defense objects to all of the submitted evidence on the grounds of relevance.

P-005: The plaintiff's being fired and any acknowledgement of it being public is not a fact of this case, and took place after the article containing the symbols was posted. The defendant is being sued for defamation, not wrongful termination.
P-006: The screenshot does not showcase what the plaintiff claims, and seems to be an entirely irrelevant message talking about generative AI in relation to the article. This screenshot does not show that "the... article was seen by many" or that it "generated [repercussion]".
P-007: Considering that the plaintiff is no longer a part of Alexandrian News, and was not at the time of the posted warning, this screenshot is not relevant. Staff's opinion on the quality of Alexandrian News publications has no bearing on the allegations being brought against the defendant.

The defense encourages the court to strike this evidence and ensure that all future evidence is related exclusively to the facts of the case.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The plaintiff respectfully requests that the defendent's objection be overruled as these exhibits are directly relevant to the case and substantiate key claims regarding reputational harm and the credibility of the Defendants' publications.
P-0005: This is not about the firing itself, but rather the public nature of the allegations made against the Plaintiff, Proving so the reputational harm of said defamatory response.
P-006: This exhibit shows public discussion and awareness of the controversy, reinforcing the claim that the defamatory statement had real consequences the article also directly references this lawsuit and the controversy surrounding Alexandrian News, demonstrating the wider impact of the case on the Plaintiff’s reputation, Given that even if AI-generated, the fact that it was publicly posted and seen in the community proves that the case and accusations were widely known.

P-007: Even if the Plaintiff was no longer part of the organization, this establishes context for the court regarding Alexandrian News reliability as a news source.

edit: grammar correction

 

[ko531]

Objection

Relevance

The defense objects to all of the submitted evidence on the grounds of relevance.

P-005: The plaintiff's being fired and any acknowledgement of it being public is not a fact of this case, and took place after the article containing the symbols was posted. The defendant is being sued for defamation, not wrongful termination.
P-006: The screenshot does not showcase what the plaintiff claims, and seems to be an entirely irrelevant message talking about generative AI in relation to the article. This screenshot does not show that "the... article was seen by many" or that it "generated [repercussion]".
P-007: Considering that the plaintiff is no longer a part of Alexandrian News, and was not at the time of the posted warning, this screenshot is not relevant. Staff's opinion on the quality of Alexandrian News publications has no bearing on the allegations being brought against the defendant.

The defense encourages the court to strike this evidence and ensure that all future evidence is related exclusively to the facts of the case.

I will be partially sustaining this objection

P-005 will remain as it does show possible reputational loss, yes, this isn't wrongful termination, but the defamatory comment came in the same message as the public firing and effects how people view the public firing.

P-006 will be struck as the message seems to have been written entirely by AI which would not be reputational loss as AI doesn't care about a person's reputation. Additionally, the message mostly talks about this court case which if any reputational loss is caused from the filing of this case, it is no one's fault but the plaintiff.

P-007 will be struck as it is staff talking about the quality of Alexandrian News's articles. This is about defamation which isn't based in the quality of what was written but what exactly was written.

 

[ko531]

Discovery is now over meaning the Plaintiff now has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[dearev]

Discovery is now over meaning the Plaintiff now has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.

Opening Statement

Your Honor I am here today as the plaintiff to defend my name from the baseless claims made by the defendant in a reckless and public fashion

on February 3rd my name was baselessly called into question by the actions of the defendants Alexandrian News and Plura27 who published an article baselessly and without prior conviction claiming me to be a scammer

going forward I would like to emphasise the preposterous and absurd nature of these claims made against myself in the most trusted and public of places(the news)
Under the law [Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act], defamation could be in summary defined as a false statement or communication that harms a person’s reputation. But more Specifically:

(1) Define defamation as:

(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) Define libel as:

(a) 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.

(3) Define Slander as:

(a) A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.

• Libel: Defamation expressed in written or published media, which exposes an individual to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
• Slander: Defamation conveyed through spoken words that damage one’s reputation, business, or professional standing.

The defendants’ actions clearly meet these criteria. For instance:

• In post P-003, the defendants emphatically declared, “DON'T TRUST THIS SCAMMER,” in capital letters and bold text.
• In the headline of P-003, they stated, “ Dearev is the one who is messing with Alexandria News, and we will fire him ASAP.”

These statements defamatory comments on my character were made in the news channel on discord which reaches a large portion of the DC community and exposes me to contempt and ridicule from the general player base. Now the criteria of slander require us to prove that the defendant has made a false claim in order to show this i asked the defendant to provide me logs of the chat in which i allegedly created these news articles he provided a video recording under D-001 this shows a message log of those who have created news articles at the business as you can see these alleged news articles I wrote do not appear in the logs further more the deffendant says these logs do not exist i ask the judge to imagine a scenario in witch every news agency kept such lax evidence retention when creating potentially slanderous news articles about individuals it creates a system of unaccountability and distrust. The deffendant may deny that they created the article yet cannot show that any person other than themselfs has used the channel he makes the unsubstantiated claim that I was more than a mere legal advisor as has been my main field of expertise that in fact I was the news manager I dispute this unsubstantiated claim if the deffendant wished to claim the ownis was on them to prove this accusation.
(ii)
The legal damages act (Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.)
Defines emotional damages as
(I) Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. Emotional damages may be proven by witness testimony, reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.

1. the defendant caused severe physiological damage and distress by posting this “article”
2. The defendant furthermore caused emotional damages by making the plaintiff lose interest in playing DC due to the humiliation the plaintiff suffered in public.

Thank, you

 

[ko531]

Opening Statement

Your Honor I am here today as the plaintiff to defend my name from the baseless claims made by the defendant in a reckless and public fashion

on February 3rd my name was baselessly called into question by the actions of the defendants Alexandrian News and Plura27 who published an article baselessly and without prior conviction claiming me to be a scammer

going forward I would like to emphasise the preposterous and absurd nature of these claims made against myself in the most trusted and public of places(the news)
Under the law [Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act], defamation could be in summary defined as a false statement or communication that harms a person’s reputation. But more Specifically:

(1) Define defamation as:

(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) Define libel as:

(a) 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.

(3) Define Slander as:

(a) A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.

• Libel: Defamation expressed in written or published media, which exposes an individual to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
• Slander: Defamation conveyed through spoken words that damage one’s reputation, business, or professional standing.

The defendants’ actions clearly meet these criteria. For instance:

• In post P-003, the defendants emphatically declared, “DON'T TRUST THIS SCAMMER,” in capital letters and bold text.
• In the headline of P-003, they stated, “ Dearev is the one who is messing with Alexandria News, and we will fire him ASAP.”

These statements defamatory comments on my character were made in the news channel on discord which reaches a large portion of the DC community and exposes me to contempt and ridicule from the general player base. Now the criteria of slander require us to prove that the defendant has made a false claim in order to show this i asked the defendant to provide me logs of the chat in which i allegedly created these news articles he provided a video recording under D-001 this shows a message log of those who have created news articles at the business as you can see these alleged news articles I wrote do not appear in the logs further more the deffendant says these logs do not exist i ask the judge to imagine a scenario in witch every news agency kept such lax evidence retention when creating potentially slanderous news articles about individuals it creates a system of unaccountability and distrust. The deffendant may deny that they created the article yet cannot show that any person other than themselfs has used the channel he makes the unsubstantiated claim that I was more than a mere legal advisor as has been my main field of expertise that in fact I was the news manager I dispute this unsubstantiated claim if the deffendant wished to claim the ownis was on them to prove this accusation.
(ii)
The legal damages act (Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.)
Defines emotional damages as
(I) Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. Emotional damages may be proven by witness testimony, reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.

1. the defendant caused severe physiological damage and distress by posting this “article”
2. The defendant furthermore caused emotional damages by making the plaintiff lose interest in playing DC due to the humiliation the plaintiff suffered in public.

Thank, you

Thank you, The defense has 72 hours to post their opening statements

 

[Kaiserin_]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, your honour. I will not take up too much of your time today presenting the defense, as I believe the court's decision in this case should be a rather straightforward one.

Let us review the facts for a moment. On February 3rd, an article containing various mysterious symbols was posted to the #news channel by Alexandrian News. A follow-up article was later made that stated that Dearev was responsible for it. Dearev was promptly fired, and both the organization and the public continued on with their lives.

The plaintiff is correct in identifying the definitions of defamation, libel, and slander from the No More Defamation Act. These definitions clearly outline that a statement must be false in order to be considered defamation. In civil lawsuits, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their claims. Such claims must be proven in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt in order for a verdict to be reached. This is and has always been the case, and these facts are universal legal knowledge. In this case, the claim being made by the plaintiff is that the article blaming Dearev for the initial posting containing the cryptic symbols was false. Discovery has come and gone, and the plaintiff has brought forward a number of irrelevant or loosely relevant pieces of evidence, none of which prove, or could even purport to prove, that the plaintiff did not publish the original article on the 3rd. Searches through logs have been unable to provide any progress toward that end, and no witness called by the plaintiff would be able to testify as to who wrote the original article. Furthermore, the defendant's use of the word "scammer" to describe the plaintiff is very obviously a statement of personal sentiment that cannot be proven true or false in this court, and is not punishable by law. There is simply insufficient evidence for the court to conclude that any false or defamatory statement has been made by Alexandrian News, and to even continue to entertain this case after such a failure by the plaintiff to substantiate their claims of defamation would be a mockery of the justice system and a waste of the time of all involved parties. As such, the defense respectfully urges the court to consider the following Motion to Dismiss.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

As the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence for their claims, the defense moves for the court to dismiss this case with prejudice under Rule 5.5, Lack of Claim, and to award legal fees for the defense's time and effort in arguing against this unfounded claim. Discovery has failed to yield any relevant backing to the plaintiff's claim, and witness testimony from someone who was entirely uninvolved with the organization would be unable to to do so either.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

[ko531]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, your honour. I will not take up too much of your time today presenting the defense, as I believe the court's decision in this case should be a rather straightforward one.

Let us review the facts for a moment. On February 3rd, an article containing various mysterious symbols was posted to the #news channel by Alexandrian News. A follow-up article was later made that stated that Dearev was responsible for it. Dearev was promptly fired, and both the organization and the public continued on with their lives.

The plaintiff is correct in identifying the definitions of defamation, libel, and slander from the No More Defamation Act. These definitions clearly outline that a statement must be false in order to be considered defamation. In civil lawsuits, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their claims. Such claims must be proven in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt in order for a verdict to be reached. This is and has always been the case, and these facts are universal legal knowledge. In this case, the claim being made by the plaintiff is that the article blaming Dearev for the initial posting containing the cryptic symbols was false. Discovery has come and gone, and the plaintiff has brought forward a number of irrelevant or loosely relevant pieces of evidence, none of which prove, or could even purport to prove, that the plaintiff did not publish the original article on the 3rd. Searches through logs have been unable to provide any progress toward that end, and no witness called by the plaintiff would be able to testify as to who wrote the original article. Furthermore, the defendant's use of the word "scammer" to describe the plaintiff is very obviously a statement of personal sentiment that cannot be proven true or false in this court, and is not punishable by law. There is simply insufficient evidence for the court to conclude that any false or defamatory statement has been made by Alexandrian News, and to even continue to entertain this case after such a failure by the plaintiff to substantiate their claims of defamation would be a mockery of the justice system and a waste of the time of all involved parties. As such, the defense respectfully urges the court to consider the following Motion to Dismiss.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

As the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence for their claims, the defense moves for the court to dismiss this case with prejudice under Rule 5.5, Lack of Claim, and to award legal fees for the defense's time and effort in arguing against this unfounded claim. Discovery has failed to yield any relevant backing to the plaintiff's claim, and witness testimony from someone who was entirely uninvolved with the organization would be unable to to do so either.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Motion of Dismiss Denied.

To dismiss this case right now would be premature. The statements made in the allegedly defamatory article is that the plaintiff (dearev) wrote the article with the weird characters. In this case the plaintiff alleges that they did not write the article and that the defendant did while the defense is arguing the opposite. As seen in D-001 the article and its author is not longer in Alexandrian News's discord. The articles didn't just appear out of thin air so it is best to hear all arguments instead of dismissing with such a level of uncertainty.


I will issue witness summons shortly

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion of Dismiss Denied.

To dismiss this case right now would be premature. The statements made in the allegedly defamatory article is that the plaintiff (dearev) wrote the article with the weird characters. In this case the plaintiff alleges that they did not write the article and that the defendant did while the defense is arguing the opposite. As seen in D-001 the article and its author is not longer in Alexandrian News's discord. The articles didn't just appear out of thin air so it is best to hear all arguments instead of dismissing with such a level of uncertainty.


I will issue witness summons shortly

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honour, the only witness that the plaintiff has submitted is Inalite, who is not a member of the Alexandrian News organization, and would have no way of being able to confirm or deny the plaintiff's allegations. The plaintiff submitted Inalite as a witness as someone who simply found interest in the strange article. Inalite could possibly testify to having seen the original article and the follow-up article, but the mere existence of these articles is not a disputed fact, and Inalite would be unable to provide any perspective to the court that would substantiate either side's argument. The plaintiff has had ample time to provide evidence and to present their argument, and has provided nothing to substantiate their claims. Thus, the defense humbly asks the court to reconsider the motion to dismiss.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honour, the only witness that the plaintiff has submitted is Inalite, who is not a member of the Alexandrian News organization, and would have no way of being able to confirm or deny the plaintiff's allegations. The plaintiff submitted Inalite as a witness as someone who simply found interest in the strange article. Inalite could possibly testify to having seen the original article and the follow-up article, but the mere existence of these articles is not a disputed fact, and Inalite would be unable to provide any perspective to the court that would substantiate either side's argument. The plaintiff has had ample time to provide evidence and to present their argument, and has provided nothing to substantiate their claims. Thus, the defense humbly asks the court to reconsider the motion to dismiss.

Motion to Reconsider Denied

The plaintiff compelled and received the very evidence that would prove the statements either true or false. I am not dismissing this case because someone deleted that evidence. A case with this level of uncertainty would be best decided with at verdict instead of prematurely at a dismissal. Going to verdict will ensure the best possible decision in this case.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Inalite is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of dearev v. Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14.

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.

 

[Inalite]

Présent

 

[ko531]

Présent

The plaintiff can begin questioning the witness, please inform the court if you have follow up questions

 

[dearev]

1. State your name for the record please
2. Have you seen the messages? both the symbols and the defamatory one?
3. Where were the messages posted at?
4. What was your reaction opon seeing the defamatory message?
5. Before the article was posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?
6. In your opinion, do articles like the defamatory one damage people's reputation?
7. Have you heard anyone talking about this article after it was posted?
Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Have you seen the messages? both the symbols and the defamatory one?

Objection

Compound

What was your reaction opon seeing the discriminatory message?

Objection

Assumes Facts not in Evidence and Leading Question

There is no discussion or evidence of a discriminatory message. Discrimination is not at issue here.

Where were the messages posted at?

Objection

Ambiguous

What are "the messages"?

In your opinion, do articles like the defamatory one damage people's reputation?

Objection

Assumes Facts not in Evidence, Leading Question, and Incompetent Witness

The "defamatory one" is loaded and leads the witness to answer with a slanted opinion. Furthermore, the question calls on the witness to testify about reputational damage of which the witness is not an expert of. They have no credentials in sociology, defamation law, public relations, or any other applicable field to speak on this topic. The witness's opinion therefore offers no probative value.

Before the article was posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?

Have you heard anyone talking about this article after it was posted?

Objection

Hearsay

The questions call the witness to testify about what other people, out of court, have said. This is directly hearsay as those statements cannot be cross examined. The statements go to the truth of the matter asserted and therefore meet all the requirements of hearsay.

 

[dearev]

Objection

Compound

Objection

Assumes Facts not in Evidence and Leading Question

There is no discussion or evidence of a discriminatory message. Discrimination is not at issue here.

Objection

Ambiguous

What are "the messages"?

Objection

Assumes Facts not in Evidence, Leading Question, and Incompetent Witness

The "defamatory one" is loaded and leads the witness to answer with a slanted opinion. Furthermore, the question calls on the witness to testify about reputational damage of which the witness is not an expert of. They have no credentials in sociology, defamation law, public relations, or any other applicable field to speak on this topic. The witness's opinion therefore offers no probative value.

Objection

Hearsay

The questions call the witness to testify about what other people, out of court, have said. This is directly hearsay as those statements cannot be cross examined. The statements go to the truth of the matter asserted and therefore meet all the requirements of hearsay.

Objection​

Assumes Facts not in Evidence and Leading Question

There is no discussion or evidence of a discriminatory message. Discrimination is not at issue here.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
acidental typographical error, edited to correct wording.

Objection​

Ambiguous

What are "the messages"?

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

"the messages" clearly refear to both messages posted by the defendent in question (the symbols and the defamatory one)

Objection​

Assumes Facts not in Evidence, Leading Question, and Incompetent Witness

The "defamatory one" is loaded and leads the witness to answer with a slanted opinion. Furthermore, the question calls on the witness to testify about reputational damage of which the witness is not an expert of. They have no credentials in sociology, defamation law, public relations, or any other applicable field to speak on this topic. The witness's opinion therefore offers no probative value.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
while the witness is not a legal expert, they are a member of the community who was exposed to the defamatory article (P-003). Their testimony is relevant in assessing public perception of the impacts caused by the article.

Objection​

Hearsay

The questions call the witness to testify about what other people, out of court, have said. This is directly hearsay as those statements cannot be cross examined. The statements go to the truth of the matter asserted and therefore meet all the requirements of hearsay.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
the intent of this question, is not to introduce statements made by third parties as evidence, but rather to establish that the article (P-003) in question gained public attention. The witness is not being asked to recount specific statements but rather confirm whether or not discussion about the article in question (P-003) occured.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Compound

Objection

Assumes Facts not in Evidence and Leading Question

There is no discussion or evidence of a discriminatory message. Discrimination is not at issue here.

Objection

Ambiguous

What are "the messages"?

Objection

Assumes Facts not in Evidence, Leading Question, and Incompetent Witness

The "defamatory one" is loaded and leads the witness to answer with a slanted opinion. Furthermore, the question calls on the witness to testify about reputational damage of which the witness is not an expert of. They have no credentials in sociology, defamation law, public relations, or any other applicable field to speak on this topic. The witness's opinion therefore offers no probative value.

Objection

Hearsay

The questions call the witness to testify about what other people, out of court, have said. This is directly hearsay as those statements cannot be cross examined. The statements go to the truth of the matter asserted and therefore meet all the requirements of hearsay.

Objection 1 (Compound)
Sustained, please rephrase the question.

Objection 2 (Assumes Facts not in Evidence and Leading Question)
Sustained, please rephrase the question and refrain from using the world discriminatory

Objection 3 (Ambiguous)
Overruled, Its pretty clear that the only thing it could be referring to is the articles in #news.

Objection 4 (Assumes Facts not in Evidence, Leading Question, and Incompetent Witness)
Sustained, Witness is not competent to be answering questions about the effects of defamation

Objection 5 (Hearsay)
Overruled, They are not asking for any particular statements plus hearsay can be permissible when talking about a persons reputation or character which this question is asking.

 

[dearev]

1. State your name for the record please
2. Have you seen the symbols message?
3. Have you seen the defamatory message? (P-003)
4. Where were the messages posted at?
5. What was your reaction opon seeing the defamatory message?
6. Before the article was posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?
7. Have you heard anyone talking about this article after it was posted?
Thank you.

 

[Kaiserin_]

3. Have you seen the defamatory message? (P-003)

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question

No messages have been established to be defamatory, despite what the plaintiff alleges.

7. Have you heard anyone talking about this article after it was posted?

Objection

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

 

[dearev]

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question

No messages have been established to be defamatory, despite what the plaintiff alleges.

Objection

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Its clear that the article being referenced to is P-003.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question

No messages have been established to be defamatory, despite what the plaintiff alleges.

Objection

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

Objection 1 (Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question)
Sustained, please rephrase the question

Objection 2 (Ambiguous, compound question)
Sustained, please rephrase the question

 

[dearev]

1. State your name for the record please
2. Have you seen the symbols message?
3. Have you seen the message? (P-003)
4. Where were the messages posted at?
5. What was your reaction opon seeing the article?
6. Before the articles were posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?
7. Have you heard anyone talking about the article (P-003) after it was posted?
Thank you.

 

[Inalite]

1. State your name for the record please

Inalite

2. Have you seen the symbols message?

Yes, I have seen the cryptic messages (and have tried reaching out to Alexandria news and Darev for a hint to decrypt them)

3. Have you seen the message? (P-003)

I have seen the message

4. Where were the messages posted at?

In the #news channel

5. What was your reaction opon seeing the article?

Reaching out to Darev for help to decrypt the messages

6. Before the articles were posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?

No

7. Have you heard anyone talking about the article (P-003) after it was posted?

No, not that I remember, probably due to the fact that the article got deleted by staff not long after.

 

[ko531]

If the plaintiff doesn't have any follow up questions then the defense can cross examine.

 

[dearev]

If the plaintiff doesn't have any follow up questions then the defense can cross examine.

The plaintiff is done questioning, thank you your honor.

 

[ko531]

Defense has 48 hours to either ask the witness questions or declare to the court that they have no questins

 

[Kaiserin_]

Defense has 48 hours to either ask the witness questions or declare to the court that they have no questins

No questions from the defense, your honour.

 

[ko531]

The witness is excess. We will be moving to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statement

 

[dearev]

The witness is excess. We will be moving to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statement

Your honor, the plaintiff requestes a 24h extension period due to personal reasons.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, the plaintiff requestes a 24h extension period due to personal reasons.

Granted

 

[dearev]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
May it please the court,

Today we stand in favour of Justice becuse, the defendant on february 3rd 2025 posted a message with various characters that didn't mean anything (P-001). Defendant then sent another message arguing that 'I posted that message' and therefore I was a ‘scammer’ (P-003), The defendant showed no proof of me posting the message with the characters (P-001).

Furthermore, D-001 confirms that the defendant, Plura72, was the one who posted the defamatory statement (P-003), yet the symbols message (P-001) is missing from the provided records.

According to the court

There is a publishing channel in Alexandrian News's discord that articles are posted in by individual users for the purpose of being put in #news. The only reason a record like this shouldn't exist is if it was deleted purposely.

Therefore, this proves the defendant deleted the message to conceal evidence, this should not go left unpunished.

Under the no more defamation Act. Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act
it defines the following
Defamation as:
“Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.”
Libel 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.”
Slander as:
“A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.”
Your Honor, the defendant’s actions clearly meet these definitions. By fabricating claims, publicly damaging my bussinesses reputation and my reputation, and deleting evidence to avoid accountability, the defendant has shown blatant disregard for the truth and the legal process.

The plaintiff believes we have provided sufficient evidence to prove of the defendants guilt, and because of the damages it caused we ask for:

1. A public apology acknowledging the false statements.
2. $10,000 in damages for reputational harm and defamation.

Thank you your honor.

 

[ko531]

The defense has 72 hours to post their closing statements.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The defense would like to request a 48 hour extension for closing statements. Real-life obligations and my recently coming into possession of a law firm, along with my other responsibilities, have made prioritizing this case difficult.

 

[ko531]

The defense would like to request a 48 hour extension for closing statements. Real-life obligations and my recently coming into possession of a law firm, along with my other responsibilities, have made prioritizing this case difficult.

Granted

 

[Kaiserin_]

Closing Statement

Good evening, your honour, opposing counsel, and other distinguished guests of the court.

May it please the court,
Throughout the case of this trial we have seen the plaintiff present a number of poorly written and flimsily justified arguments in an attempt to convince you that my client is a liar. The defense urges the court to examine the facts of this case critically, and to ask itself a simple question: has there been enough proof presented to the court to demonstrate, or even make it seem likely, that the defendant defamed the plaintiff?

On the facts
The situation present in this case is an odd one - any observer would be remiss not to admit that. On February 3rd, Alexandrian News published a mysterious article containing cryptic symbols. This prompted mild intrigue for some, as evidenced by the witness testimony provided, but overall did not cause a public stir. Nevertheless, it was unprofessional and unbecoming of a news organization. It is clear that Alexandrian News felt the same, as the article was later deleted, and a follow-up article containing an explanation was posted.
This follow-up article revealed some strife within the organization. Its publisher made it clear that the plaintiff, Dearev, was responsible for the previous article, communicated that he had been fired, and expressed some disdain for him. No doubt, there had been an altercation of some kind behind the scenes.
Despite this article being made public, it appears that it had little to no impact. It did not stay up for long, being deleted by staff, and the plaintiff has only shown that one singular observer even thought anything of the series of events. This singular observer noted that they had not heard anyone else talking about the article. By all accounts, the court has been shown that there was no widespread attention, positive or negative, garnered by either article in question today.

Who posted the article?
The question remains regrettably unanswered. While the defense has made (unfortunately unsuccessful) efforts along with the defendant to find solid proof that the original, mysterious article was not created by Plura, all trace of it has been removed. The defense has cooperated with court requests to provide chat logs in an attempt to uncover the truth, even providing logs in video format despite not being required to, but no record remains of the article containing the symbols. What can the court gleam from this? As the honourable magistrate correctly pointed out, someone must have posted the article and deleted the message in the Alexandrian News channel. The plaintiff, who had access to post in this channel, had motive to do this. While no hard proof could be found, it remains true that Dearev had every reason to remove the traces of him having posted the unprofessional article, likely for justified fear for his standing within the company, seeing as he was later terminated. This remains the defense’s position, and was the timeline of events communicated by the defendant both to his legal counsel and to the public. Without any kind of evidence to the contrary presented by the plaintiff, neither the court nor the defendant’s counsel have any reason to believe that this is not what happened.

What constitutes defamation?
The No More Defamation Act, along with well-established common law principles, outline three basic conditions for a statement or publication to be classified as defamation: it must be published, it must be false, and it must have damaged one’s reputation. This precedent was established in bigpappa140 v. BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63 and upheld mere days ago in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 – the court opinion provided in the latter outlines an excellent and extremely up-to-date precedent for proving defamation that is directly consequential for this case. It is obvious that the article shown in P-002 was published, even if briefly. Therefore, the court must rightfully consider whether the publication was demonstrably false, and whether it was demonstrably damaging to Dearev’s reputation.

On the burden of proof and the balance of probabilities
In all civil cases, and particularly for defamation, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the claim in question was false. The federal court dismissed Unitymaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FRC 16 because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the statements they alleged to be defamatory were false. The judge for this case noted specifically that the case was dismissed due to the plaintiff failing to provide evidence that the statements were false. Further, the district court dismissed xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1 because the plaintiff (once again, specifically) failed to provide any proof that damage had occurred to the plaintiff’s reputation due to alleged defamation. This dismissal was later upheld by the federal court in an appeal, xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] FRC 12. Thus, all established precedent dictates that the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff to provide evidence that the allegedly defamatory publication was both false and damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation. Further, this proof must overcome the balance of probabilities, as established in §13.1.a of the Judicial Standards Act and reaffirmed in the aforementioned court opinion in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

Therefore, the court must ask itself this: has the plaintiff provided enough proof to overcome the balance of probabilities in asserting that the article published on Alexandrian News and showcased in P-002 was both false and damaging to Dearev’s reputation?

In short, no.

The plaintiff has failed, despite ceaseless calls for such and even the close cooperation of the defense, to provide any evidence whatsoever that Dearev did not publish the article in question. The line of events established by Alexandrian News and the defense is that Dearev posted the article and deleted the message in the Discord publications channel – this claim is far from unlikely, because the court knows for a fact that someone did such. The plaintiff has no standing to dispute this claim, because no evidence was provided to substantiate it.
Further, the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that their reputation was tangibly harmed by the article, regardless of its author. It cannot be understated the significance of the fact that the plaintiff’s own witness, who was called to the stand purportedly to prove damage to reputation, admitted that he had not heard of a single other person even discussing the article in question. The article was very quickly deleted, and thus could not possibly have had the reach to cause any amount of damage to Dearev’s public reputation. Undoubtedly, this very case has received more attention than the allegedly “defamatory” article ever did. The court cannot rule, given the evidence (or lack thereof) and testimony provided, that the plaintiff has sufficiently overcome a reasonable balance of probabilities to prove either claim necessary for a publication to qualify as defamation.

Thus, the defense respectfully and emphatically urges the court to award no prayer for relief to the plaintiff, and thanks the presiding magistrate and the opposing counsel for their time.

 

[ko531]

Court is now in recess pending verdict

 

[ko531]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
dearev v Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Alexandrian news posted a defamatory article calling the plaintiff a scammer
2. This article not only was defamatory but caused emotional harm and distress onto the plaintiff

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Plura72 did not write or post the article.
2. The plaintiff is the one who actually wrote the article
3. The plaintiff did not meet the standard of proof for defamation or for balance of probabilities
4. The defense is seeking counterclaims for legal damages

III. THE COURT OPINION

When looking at this case there are two questions that must be answered, who wrote the article and was the standard for defamation met. The evidence leaves much to be desired meaning that these questions must be looked at through a balance of probabilities.

Firstly, let's look at defamation. As defined in the No More Defamation act and later confirmed in Vernicia v. Ryland [2025] FCR 5, To prove defamation you must prove three things. 1. The statement was published 2. The statement was false. 3. The statement caused reputational damage.

Was the statement published?
Yes, it is clearly seen posted in #news.

Was the statement false?
Now while the authorship of the first article is still at question, the second half of the message could be defamatory just as much. even though it was never directly proven that dearev was in fact not a scammer as the article asserts, the statement was never argued to be true. Both sides are arguing that the statement was meant to cause damage, either to dearev or to Plura72/Alexandrian News depending on the author. In order for damage to happen to either party the statement must be false. So the court is confident that the statement was false.

Did the statement cause reputational damage?
The statement was posted, even for the short time it was, in the highly viewed and public channel of #news. It is almost a guarantee that people saw the article. Just because the statement was seen does not mean it was harmful. The issue is because this case was posted so fast, it is hard to gage whether the bulk of the attention and therefore potential of harm is from the article itself or from this case. The only evidence as to the articles reach is the plaintiff's witness which said they saw no one talking about it which leads the court to believe that if any damage occurred it was at most minimum but still harm.

Now as to who wrote the article, it is clear that whoever did covered their tracks by deleting the evidence of their authorship. The only evidence is D-001 which shows the absences of the post, but it also provides some context clues. When looking at D-001 you will see that almost every article was written and posted by plura72 with the exception of 2 from a secondary bot (Spidey bot). When considering the authorship, the court turns to this fact that is must make the finding that it is more probable that Plura72 wrote it and not dearev.

Finally, the court not only must consider the probability of each the author and the harm done, it must also consider the probability of both at the same time. While the court is confident in its assessment that it is more probable that harm was done but minimally and that plura72 wrote the article, it is much less confident that both are true at the same time. There is too much room in being wrong in either answer that both together is a breaking point. For the number of assumptions and deductions done to achieve these answers the court is not confident enough in their combined probability to find someone liable for defamation.


IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Defense but no legal fees will be granted.


The District Court thanks all involved.