Lawsuit: Dismissed Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 7

[pricelessAgrari]

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 towards 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, and harmful attempt meant to discourage any possible new members from considering joining the Plaintiff's new party.

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, and sarcastically added that the new party would love democracy (see p-001).
3. There is no evidence of Maxib02's involvement in rigging a vote.
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 player named Anthony by claiming, "Anthony said so" (see p-001).

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 Maxib02's political party, which is an organization.
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.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $15,000 in punitive damages for slander.
2. $4,500 in legal fees, 30% of the case value.

Spoiler: p-001

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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 22nd 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 7

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.

 

[dearev]

Your Honor,

The defendant is present.

Please present an answer to complain within the next 48 hours.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Your honor, as the former leader of The Freedom Coalition, I am very familiar with the allegations levied against the plaintiff. May I file an Amicus brief on the vote rigging allegations and provide screenshots from the event?

 

[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 are multiple sources who have published these allegations, if this case goes to trial the Defense will call Anthony_Org and Ignited_TnT to substantiate these claims, and prove that the statements were not false. (D-001), (D-002), (D-003), (D-004), (D-005), (D-006), (D-007), (D-008), and (D-009).
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)

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 only evidence submitted by the Plaintiff showcases the act of stating the alleged defamatory statement, however the Plaintiff has provided no evidence even alleging that any reputational harm to the organization occurred, or that the defamatory statements were even acknowledged by any other people present. (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 22nd day of January 2026

 

[Novakerbal]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - Rule 5.5 | Lack of Claim

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. As examined in II, Defenses 2. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that proves reputational harm. Indeed the filing fails to even allege that any reputational harm has occurred. This clearly fails to meet the evidentiary standards established in DCR 67 and DCR 1 (as referenced in the Answer to Complaint).

This Case asks for damages without providing any claim alleging that any damages even occurred, it should be dismissed with Prejudice as the filing does not state a sufficient claim that would prove defamation.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Your honor, I rescind my Amicus Brief filing as I've been called on as a witness.

I do not contest being called as a witness

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - Rule 5.5 | Lack of Claim

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. As examined in II, Defenses 2. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that proves reputational harm. Indeed the filing fails to even allege that any reputational harm has occurred. This clearly fails to meet the evidentiary standards established in DCR 67 and DCR 1 (as referenced in the Answer to Complaint).

This Case asks for damages without providing any claim alleging that any damages even occurred, it should be dismissed with Prejudice as the filing does not state a sufficient claim that would prove defamation.

Denied. The court belives that dismissing on lack of evidence before discovery would be improper at this stage.

Your honor, I rescind my Amicus Brief filing as I've been called on as a witness.

I do not contest being called as a witness

noted.

---

We shall now be moving onto discovery that shall be lasting 5 days. Discovery shall end @ Jan 29th 2026, 8:04pm EST

 

[Novakerbal]

Denied. The court belives that dismissing on lack of evidence before discovery would be improper at this stage.

noted.

---

We shall now be moving onto discovery that shall be lasting 5 days. Discovery shall end @ Jan 29th 2026, 8:04pm EST

Motion

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

Your Honor,

It is not solely a point of a lack of evidence, the filing provided by the Plaintiff fails to allege any reputational harm, full stop. This is not a sole issue of lack of evidence, the Plaintiff has failed to provide a claim even alleging reputational harm. No amount of discovery can provide evidence for a claim that was never made in the first place.

Precedent shows that an individual cannot be sued for defamation if there is no proven reputational harm. As the Plaintiff has not even attempted to argue that any harm actually occurred, this case has no legs.

 

[dearev]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

It is not solely a point of a lack of evidence, the filing provided by the Plaintiff fails to allege any reputational harm, full stop. This is not a sole issue of lack of evidence, the Plaintiff has failed to provide a claim even alleging reputational harm. No amount of discovery can provide evidence for a claim that was never made in the first place.

Precedent shows that an individual cannot be sued for defamation if there is no proven reputational harm. As the Plaintiff has not even attempted to argue that any harm actually occurred, this case has no legs.

The plaintiff shall have 24 hours to provide a response if they wish.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

The plaintiff shall have 24 hours to provide a response if they wish.

Your honour,
I am joining this case as co-counsel.

We request that this timeline be extended until Sunday, 25th January 00:00 UTC. We shall submit our response as soon as possible.

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

 

[dearev]

Your honour,
I am joining this case as co-counsel.

We request that this timeline be extended until Sunday, 25th January 00:00 UTC. We shall submit our response as soon as possible.

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

View attachment 73057

Extension Granted

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The plaintiff moves that the case be dismissed. It is the plaintiff's intention to refile this case after the Plaintiff has received further legal advice, hence we request that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The plaintiff moves that the case be dismissed. It is the plaintiff's intention to refile this case after the Plaintiff has received further legal advice, hence we request that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

Granted. case dismissed without prejudice at the request of the plaintiff