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

[Maxib02]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

NovaKerbal
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

At or around 21:32 GMT, NovaKerbal made false claims in a public chat about Maxib02 following their political advertisement, stating, "Maxib, the guy who rigged a vote, this party will surely love democracy." After Maxib02 told them (NovaKerbal) that they had just defamed him, the Defendant doubled down, stating, "how is it defamation if its true", clearly making it appear to others that Maxib02 had been confirmed to have committed the criminal act. The timing of these claims was a deliberate, ignorant, misleading, and a harmful attempt meant to discourage any possible new members from considering joining the Plaintiff's new party, as well as generally damage the plaintiffs reputation.

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

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


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

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $20,000 in punitive damages for slander.
2. $5,000 in legal fees, 25% of the case value.
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

V. WITNESSES
1. jsrkiwi

2. NotCom_Was_taken
3. IamJeb_

DATED: This 25th day of January 2026

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Novakerbal, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11

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.

 

[Novakerbal]

Your Honor,

The Defendant is present

 

[Novakerbal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

NovaKerbal
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



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

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


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

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $20,000 in punitive damages for slander.
2. $5,000 in legal fees, 25% of the case value.
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

V. WITNESSES
1. jsrkiwi

2. NotCom_Was_taken
3. IamJeb_

DATED: This 25th day of January 2026

Objection

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Maxib02]

Objection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Filing

Objection​

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Superwoops]

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

 

[dearev]

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

You may

 

[Anthony_Org]

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

 

[Superwoops]

Brief

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

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

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

 

[Maxib02]

Brief

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

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

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

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- misrepresentation of evidence

I see this brief as fundamentally dishonest.

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

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

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

 

[Superwoops]

I know it's not standard procedure, but as an amicus of the Court, I was wondering if I could respond to this objection, which appears to claim I am biased towards the Defendant.

 

[Novakerbal]

Case Filing

Objection​

I see this brief as fundamentally dishonest.

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

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

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

Objection

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

Your Honor,

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

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

 

[dearev]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

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

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

Sustained.

Brief

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Denied.

Case Filing

Objection​

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

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

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

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

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

Overruled.

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

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

Your Honor,

The Defendant is present

Please present an answer within 48 hours.

 

[Novakerbal]

Sustained.


Thank you.

Denied.

Overruled.

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

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

Please present an answer within 48 hours.

Your Honor,

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

 

[dearev]

Your Honor,

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

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

Objection

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

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

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

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

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

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

perjury is Overruled.

on improper evidence

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

 

[Maxib02]

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


perjury is Overruled.

on improper evidence

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

Objection

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

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

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

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

 

[Maxib02]

Sustained.


Thank you.

Denied.

Overruled.

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

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

Please present an answer within 48 hours.

​

Case Filing

MOTION

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


Your honour,

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

[Case/]

 

[Maxib02]

Brief

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

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

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

Brief

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

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

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

Case Filing

Objection​

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Maxib02]

Case Filing

Objection​

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

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

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

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

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

Case Filing

MOTION

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


Your honour,

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

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

 

[Novakerbal]

Case Filing

MOTION

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


Your honour,

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

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

Objection

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

Your Honor,

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

 

[Novakerbal]

Case Filing

Objection​

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

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

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

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

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

Objection

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

Your Honor,

Let us address each of these objections in order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Novakerbal]

Answer to Complaint

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

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

NovaKerbal
Defendant

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

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

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

Evidence List:

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

Spoiler: D-007

Spoiler: D-008

Spoiler: D-009

Witness List:

1. Anthony_Org
2. IgnitedTnT

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

DATED: This 31st day of January 2026