Lawsuit: In Session Meadowbrooke Bank V JJDizz1L [2026] DCR 130

[__Doubled]

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION



Meadowbrook Bank & Council

Plaintiff



v.



JJDizz1L Also Known As Professional JJ

Defendant



COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:



WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I, Fluffyjumperfive, as owner/representative of Meadowbrook Bank, affirm that the statements made by the Defendant were false, unprovoked, and caused direct harm to my business and its standing within the community.



I. PARTIES

1. Meadowbrook Banking & Council ( “Plaintiff”) A duly operated financial institution within the Commonwealth of Redmont, represented by Blackstone Law Group

2. JJDizz1L (“Defendant”) The individual responsible for the publication of the defamatory statements at issue.



II. FACTS

1. On or about 28 July 2026, the Defendant publicly published statements alleging that Meadowbrook Bank had unlawfully withheld funds from one of its depositors. These allegations were false. S1.1 , S1.2 , S1.4 . 1.2 & 1.4 remarks made in discord by the public.

2. The statements were published through the in-game /ad system and were visible to more than one hundred members of the public. S1.1

3 The Defendant additionally published statements including, but not limited to:

• "Never bank with Meadowbrook Bank."

• "That bank I love DemocracyCraft!ing sucks."

These statements were intended to discourage members of the public from conducting business with the Plaintiff.



4. Following publication of these statements, the Plaintiff experienced a decline in customer accounts and deposits, which the Plaintiff intends to demonstrate through business records. S1.6

5. Prior to filing this action, the Plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute informally. When offered the opportunity to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage caused, the Defendant responded:

• "nah im a homeless bum or sum like that"

• "shii ive got nothing for them"

6. Following the events described above, the Plaintiff obtained evidence indicating that the Defendant expressed an intention to evade any potential civil judgment by concealing or transferring assets. Specifically, the Defendant stated words to the effect of "evade charges" and "hide the bread" (a colloquial expression referring to money or assets including a possible “Skyscraper”). Copies of these communications are attached as SI 1.1 AND SI 1.2,SI 1.4,SI 1.5 ,SI 2.1,SI2.2 & Stipulated he will not make an appearance in court SI 1.3.

Key Causes of Action

- The Defendant published false statements concerning the Plaintiff.

- The Defendant knew, or acted with reckless disregard for whether, the statements were false.

- The statements were communicated to third parties.

- The statements harmed the Plaintiff's reputation and business interests.

- As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff suffered financial and reputational damages.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count 1 – Libel | DEFAMATION AND REPUTATION (1 a-c)

1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as thought fully set forth herein.

2. Defendant published false statements alleging that Meadowbrook Bank withheld customer funds and further encouraged members of the public not to conduct business with the Plaintiff.

3. The statements were made through the public /ad system, constituting a published communication embodied in a physical or recorded form.

4. The statements were injurious to the Plaintiff’s reputation and business and caused a loss of customer deposits evidenced in S1.1

5. Accordingly, The Defendants conduct constitutes Libel in violation of Part II Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

6. Plaintiff requests the remedies available under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Including an order requiring the Defendant to issue a public retraction and any Additional relief the court deems just and proper.

COUNT 2 – Slander | DEFAMATION AND REPUTATION (2 a-c)

1. The Defendant made a false statement to injure the Plaintiff’s reputation as shown in the proceedings above.

2. The Statement Was Made In /ad making it clearly visible to the public demonstrating intent and execution of injury.

3. The statement made it clear that customers should not bank with the Plaintiff demonstrating the underlying.

4. Accordingly, The Defendants conduct constitutes Defamation in violation of Part V Section 3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

S1.1

COUNT 3 – Defamation | DEFAMATION AND REPUTATION (3 a-c)

1. Accordingly, The Defendants conduct constitutes Defamation in violation of Part V Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

S1.1


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

20,000 DCC in Compensatory damages due to lost income

10,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the damage done to the Plaintiff's business and reputation that was the direct consequence of the Defendant's statements. 'Defamation'

25,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the Business Earnings Damages incurred by the Defendant's statements 'LIBEL'

15,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the humiliation faced by the Plaintiff that was the direct consequence of the Defendant's statements 'SLANDER'

18,000 DCC in Punitive damages due to outrageous conduct of the Defendant 'Libel'

30% (26,400 DCC) in legal fees paid to Blackstone Law Group

Totalling 114,400 DCC

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 28th day of July 2026

 

[__Doubled]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honour, The Defendant's publicly visible balance is very low, but the Plaintiff believes this is because the Defendant has 1) purposefully bought property in the form of the aforementioned skyscraper, and 2) transferred the money to another location in order to avoid punishment. The Plaintiff is concerned that unless the Defendant's assets are frozen, the Defendant will continue causing harm to others and put at risk the very funds that would be used to satisfy any damages awarded in this case, which the Plaintiff alleges rightfully belong to them. Given these circumstances, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

1. The Court orders all the assets of the Defendant be frozen until a judgement can be reached, due to the evidence that the Defendant is likely further to continue attempt to transfer, move, or otherwise conceal funds in such a way to make judgement difficult in this case and preceding cases.

 

[Muggy21]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honour, The Defendant's publicly visible balance is very low, but the Plaintiff believes this is because the Defendant has 1) purposefully bought property in the form of the aforementioned skyscraper, and 2) transferred the money to another location in order to avoid punishment. The Plaintiff is concerned that unless the Defendant's assets are frozen, the Defendant will continue causing harm to others and put at risk the very funds that would be used to satisfy any damages awarded in this case, which the Plaintiff alleges rightfully belong to them. Given these circumstances, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

1. The Court orders all the assets of the Defendant be frozen until a judgement can be reached, due to the evidence that the Defendant is likely further to continue attempt to transfer, move, or otherwise conceal funds in such a way to make judgement difficult in this case and preceding cases.

DENIED, there is no existing obligation that requires securitization.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@jjdizz1l is commanded to appear in the District Court for the case Meadowbrooke Bank v. JJdizz1l [2026] DCR 130

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.

 

[jjdizz1l]

ItsLoLbrine (Isaac Goldstein) is representing me (JJDizz1L) in the case of Meadowbrooke Bank V JJDizz1L [2026] DCR 130

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Meadowbrook Bank & Council
Plaintiff

v.

JJDizz1L Also Known As Professional JJ
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense DENIES that the Defendant published any statements alleging unlawful withholding of funds by Meadowbrook Bank. No such factual accusation was ever made.

2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant used the in‑game /ad system, but DENIES that such use was defamatory or constituted any false factual claim.

3. The Defense DENIES the Plaintiff’s characterization of the statements quoted. Any remarks made were expressions of opinion, dissatisfaction, or humor, not factual allegations.

4. The Defense DENIES that any statements caused a decline in customer accounts or deposits. The Defense further DENIES that the Plaintiff can demonstrate causation or produce valid evidence of damages.

5. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant made informal, unserious remarks during attempted settlement discussions, but DENIES that these remarks constitute evidence of liability, intent, or malice.

6. The Defense DENIES all allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Any alleged “incriminating messages” were casual expressions, jokes, or misinterpreted slang, and do not demonstrate intent to evade judgment or conceal assets.

II. DEFENCES

1. The Plaintiff fails to provide legally valid proof of defamation. The Defendant never stated that Meadowbrook Bank “withheld funds,” only that withdrawal processing took longer than expected.

2. Any /ad statements made by the Defendant were opinions, not actionable under the Redmont Civil Code. Opinions, dissatisfaction, or sarcasm cannot constitute defamation.

3. The Defendant’s statements were subjective impressions regarding service speed, not factual claims. As opinions, they cannot constitute libel, slander, or defamation.

4. The alleged decline in customer accounts is not attributable to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s evidence (S1.6) is invalid: the individual “rawrrae69” is not a customer, but a staff member and executive banker of Meadowbrook Bank (d‑001), and admitted informally to working there prior to the Defendant’s statements (d‑002).

5. Any statements referenced by the Plaintiff were casual remarks, jokes, or sarcasm, lacking intent, malice, or defamatory purpose.

6. The Plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proof required for libel, slander, or defamation under Part V Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. No false factual statement, no damages, and no malicious intent have been demonstrated.

Additionally, the Defense notes that the Plaintiff’s reliance on false or manipulated evidence may constitute perjury, further invalidating the Complaint and exposing the Plaintiff to criminal liability.

III. EVIDENCE & WITNESSES

d‑001: Screenshot that shows that Rawrrae69 is a staff member and executive banker in the Meadowbrook Bank Discord server.

d‑002: Conversation dated 29/07/2026 where he admits to working there for two days, before the defamation allegations.


DATED: This 3rd day of August 2026

 

[Muggy21]

We shall proceed to discovery.

Discovery shall close on 8/8/26 @ 9pm EDT

 

[__Doubled]

Further Discovered Evidence
This will be noted and utilized in the forthgoing proceedings.

However your Honour would like to draw your attention to B1.3 , B1.18 and B1.7,B1.12 in regards of the Answer to complaint ". The Defense DENIES all allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Any alleged “incriminating messages” were casual expressions, jokes, or misinterpreted slang, and do not demonstrate intent to evade judgment or conceal assets."

 

[__Doubled]

Further Discovered Evidence
This will be noted and utilized in the forthgoing proceedings. ( Provided by fluffy ( Plaintiff ) from JJ's ( Defendants) Ticket)

 

[__Doubled]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiffs Council seeks to strike the following evidence from the record ( d-001 & d-002 )

i. Facts

1. Exhibits d-001 & d-002 were obtained by Defendants Counsel, ItsLoLbrine ("Isaac Goldstein") through direct private communication with Sahabi ( also known as rawrae69), a staff member and executive banker of the Plaintiff, Meadowbrook Bank.

2. This communication occurred on 29th of July 2026 , after the events giving rise to this litigation and while Plaintiff was represented by counsel of record in this matter.

ii. Grounds For Striking
1. Above attached Exhibit D-002 is the communication in which Defendant's counsel identifies himself as an attorney and directly questions a known employee of the Plaintiff regarding matters squarely related to the subject of this litigation, namely the following: the closure of a banking account referenced in the underlying dispute and the employees role at Meadowbrook bank.

2.This communication was conducted directly with the Plaintiff's employee, Without any notice of deposition or consent from the Plaintiffs counsel's of record, despite the Defendant's council actual knowledge that the Plaintiff was represented in this matter.

3. Defendants counsel further represented to the employee that he was " Not In Danger " Or " Getting sued" characterizing the inquiry as being "just to fix some legal issues" ( D-002) a characterization that minimized the true purpose and stakes of the exchange, namely the gathering of evidence for use against the Plaintiff in active litigation.

4. As a result, the employee's response , including the admission relied upon in D-002 were obtained under circumstances that did not fairly disclose the evidentiary use to which they would be put, and without the safeguard of Plaintiff's counsel being present or informed.

5. Evidence obtained through direct, unauthorized contact with a represented party's employee regarding the subject matter of pending litigation should not be admitted, as it undermines the integrity of the discovery process and the Plaintiffs right to have counsel present during questioning of its own staff or matters relevant to the case.

6. Near the end of the communication "I have some friends that want to work in financial institutes like yours" Defendants council mislead the employee making him believe this was a fair and friendly conversation not relevant to any case.

iii. Request For Relief
The Plaintiff & Counsel respectfully requests that this Honourable and Fair Court:

A. Strike Exhibits d-001 & d-002 from the record.

B. If striking is not plausible , direct that the circumstances under which this evidence was obtained be weighed heavily against its credibility and evidentiary value.

C. Grant any further relief as the Court deems fair just and proper.

DATED: Fourth Of August 2026

 

[xVoltrix]

Your Honor,

__Doubled has been deported and fired from the company for a plethora of reasons. I will be taking over representation of Meadowbrooke Bank as a Senior Associate of Blackstone Law Group.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

__Doubled has been deported and fired from the company for a plethora of reasons. I will be taking over representation of Meadowbrooke Bank as a Senior Associate of Blackstone Law Group.

Proof?

 

[xVoltrix]

Spoiler: Proof of represenation

 

[Muggy21]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiffs Council seeks to strike the following evidence from the record ( d-001 & d-002 )

i. Facts

1. Exhibits d-001 & d-002 were obtained by Defendants Counsel, ItsLoLbrine ("Isaac Goldstein") through direct private communication with Sahabi ( also known as rawrae69), a staff member and executive banker of the Plaintiff, Meadowbrook Bank.

2. This communication occurred on 29th of July 2026 , after the events giving rise to this litigation and while Plaintiff was represented by counsel of record in this matter.

ii. Grounds For Striking
1. Above attached Exhibit D-002 is the communication in which Defendant's counsel identifies himself as an attorney and directly questions a known employee of the Plaintiff regarding matters squarely related to the subject of this litigation, namely the following: the closure of a banking account referenced in the underlying dispute and the employees role at Meadowbrook bank.

2.This communication was conducted directly with the Plaintiff's employee, Without any notice of deposition or consent from the Plaintiffs counsel's of record, despite the Defendant's council actual knowledge that the Plaintiff was represented in this matter.

3. Defendants counsel further represented to the employee that he was " Not In Danger " Or " Getting sued" characterizing the inquiry as being "just to fix some legal issues" ( D-002) a characterization that minimized the true purpose and stakes of the exchange, namely the gathering of evidence for use against the Plaintiff in active litigation.

4. As a result, the employee's response , including the admission relied upon in D-002 were obtained under circumstances that did not fairly disclose the evidentiary use to which they would be put, and without the safeguard of Plaintiff's counsel being present or informed.

5. Evidence obtained through direct, unauthorized contact with a represented party's employee regarding the subject matter of pending litigation should not be admitted, as it undermines the integrity of the discovery process and the Plaintiffs right to have counsel present during questioning of its own staff or matters relevant to the case.

6. Near the end of the communication "I have some friends that want to work in financial institutes like yours" Defendants council mislead the employee making him believe this was a fair and friendly conversation not relevant to any case.

iii. Request For Relief
The Plaintiff & Counsel respectfully requests that this Honourable and Fair Court:

A. Strike Exhibits d-001 & d-002 from the record.

B. If striking is not plausible , direct that the circumstances under which this evidence was obtained be weighed heavily against its credibility and evidentiary value.

C. Grant any further relief as the Court deems fair just and proper.

DATED: Fourth Of August 2026

@xVoltrix This is pending for you, please take 48 Hours to respond.

 

[xVoltrix]

I'm representing the Plaintiff. I would just like to add the following to the motion:
I as a BAR Councillor consider this conduct to be a violation of the following BAR Legal Code of Conduct rules:
General Principles:
- Trust and Integrity (it's a breach of honesty and integrity to obtain this information without a formal witness examination process, without giving the other party the ability to object if they'd deem it proper)
Court Relations:
- Court Rules of Conduct, Paragraph 1 and 2 (lack of following of proper discovery rules)

 

[Muggy21]

I'm representing the Plaintiff. I would just like to add the following to the motion:
I as a BAR Councillor consider this conduct to be a violation of the following BAR Legal Code of Conduct rules:
General Principles:
- Trust and Integrity (it's a breach of honesty and integrity to obtain this information without a formal witness examination process, without giving the other party the ability to object if they'd deem it proper)
Court Relations:
- Court Rules of Conduct, Paragraph 1 and 2 (lack of following of proper discovery rules)

What exactly is this? Are you responding to the motion as Counsel or as a Bar Councillor. I don't care for the latter, I only care for the former.

Please advise what this is.

 

[xVoltrix]

I'm responding to the motion as Counsel. I believe you misunderstood me when I said I would be taking over for Doubled. I am now representing the Plaintiff and I wanted to include the BAR CoC violations as further reasons to strike the evidence provided by the opposition.

 

[Muggy21]

I'm responding to the motion as Counsel. I believe you misunderstood me when I said I would be taking over for Doubled. I am now representing the Plaintiff and I wanted to include the BAR CoC violations as further reasons to strike the evidence provided by the opposition.

Yes, I did confuse you with defense counsel, apologies.

@ItsLoLbrine Please respond to the motion within 48 Hours.

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiffs Council seeks to strike the following evidence from the record ( d-001 & d-002 )

i. Facts

1. Exhibits d-001 & d-002 were obtained by Defendants Counsel, ItsLoLbrine ("Isaac Goldstein") through direct private communication with Sahabi ( also known as rawrae69), a staff member and executive banker of the Plaintiff, Meadowbrook Bank.

2. This communication occurred on 29th of July 2026 , after the events giving rise to this litigation and while Plaintiff was represented by counsel of record in this matter.

ii. Grounds For Striking
1. Above attached Exhibit D-002 is the communication in which Defendant's counsel identifies himself as an attorney and directly questions a known employee of the Plaintiff regarding matters squarely related to the subject of this litigation, namely the following: the closure of a banking account referenced in the underlying dispute and the employees role at Meadowbrook bank.

2.This communication was conducted directly with the Plaintiff's employee, Without any notice of deposition or consent from the Plaintiffs counsel's of record, despite the Defendant's council actual knowledge that the Plaintiff was represented in this matter.

3. Defendants counsel further represented to the employee that he was " Not In Danger " Or " Getting sued" characterizing the inquiry as being "just to fix some legal issues" ( D-002) a characterization that minimized the true purpose and stakes of the exchange, namely the gathering of evidence for use against the Plaintiff in active litigation.

4. As a result, the employee's response , including the admission relied upon in D-002 were obtained under circumstances that did not fairly disclose the evidentiary use to which they would be put, and without the safeguard of Plaintiff's counsel being present or informed.

5. Evidence obtained through direct, unauthorized contact with a represented party's employee regarding the subject matter of pending litigation should not be admitted, as it undermines the integrity of the discovery process and the Plaintiffs right to have counsel present during questioning of its own staff or matters relevant to the case.

6. Near the end of the communication "I have some friends that want to work in financial institutes like yours" Defendants council mislead the employee making him believe this was a fair and friendly conversation not relevant to any case.

iii. Request For Relief
The Plaintiff & Counsel respectfully requests that this Honourable and Fair Court:

A. Strike Exhibits d-001 & d-002 from the record.

B. If striking is not plausible , direct that the circumstances under which this evidence was obtained be weighed heavily against its credibility and evidentiary value.

C. Grant any further relief as the Court deems fair just and proper.

DATED: Fourth Of August 2026

Response

The Defendant submits this response to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Exhibits d‑001 and d‑002.

1. Exhibit d‑001 is admissible.
This exhibit was obtained from the Plaintiff’s public Meadowbrook Bank Discord server.
It was publicly posted, accessible to all users, and not the result of any private or improper
communication. Therefore, it does not violate discovery rules or ethical standards and should
remain in the record.

2. Exhibit d‑002 is not admissible.
This exhibit originates from a private conversation with a Plaintiff employee while the Plaintiff
was represented by counsel. Because it was obtained outside formal discovery, the Defendant
does not oppose its exclusion.

Accordingly, the Defendant requests that the Court deny the Motion to Strike as to Exhibit d‑001
and grant it as to Exhibit d‑002.

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

Further Discovered Evidence
This will be noted and utilized in the forthgoing proceedings. ( Provided by fluffy ( Plaintiff ) from JJ's ( Defendants) Ticket)

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

The Defendant respectfully moves this Honourable Court to strike Exhibits b1.23 and b1.24
from the record.

i. Facts

1. Exhibits b1.23 and b1.24 were obtained from a private conversation inside the Defendant’s
support ticket, not from any public source or authorized discovery channel.

2. These attachments were submitted by the Plaintiff under the label “Further Discovered
Evidence,” despite not being discovered through any formal or proper evidentiary process.

ii. Grounds for Striking

1. The exhibits originate from private, informal chat messages and therefore are inadmissible.
Private ticket conversations are not valid evidence unless obtained through proper discovery.

2. The attachments do not prove any material fact relevant to the claims or defenses in this
case. They contain no admissions, no factual clarifications, and no information that advances
the Plaintiff’s position.

3. Their submission as “Further Discovered Evidence” mischaracterizes private conversation
as legitimate discovery, which undermines the integrity of the evidentiary process.

iii. Request for Relief

The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Strike Exhibits b1.23 and b1.24 from the record as inadmissible private communications
that lack relevance and probative value.

B. Direct that any future submissions labeled as “Further Discovered Evidence” comply with
proper discovery procedures.

C. Grant any further relief the Court deems fair and proper.

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

Evidence

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE SUBMISSION — d‑003 & d‑004

The Defendant submits Exhibits d‑003 and d‑004 as relevant evidence supporting the
Defendant’s position regarding the Plaintiff’s financial claims and representations.

i. Exhibit d‑003 — Executive Banker Admission

Exhibit d‑003 contains a statement made by the Plaintiff’s own executive banker, wherein
they admit that Meadowbrook Bank generated only “2k in profits last month.” This admission
directly contradicts any assertion of substantial or stable financial performance and is a
statement made by a high‑ranking employee of the Plaintiff.

This evidence demonstrates:
- The Plaintiff’s bank is operating at extremely low profitability.
- The Plaintiff’s financial claims in this litigation are exaggerated or unsupported.
- The Plaintiff’s own staff acknowledges the bank’s weak financial condition.

ii. Exhibit d‑004 — Corporate Account Balance & Bank Policy

Exhibit d‑004 is a screenshot from the official DemocracyCraft economy system showing
the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account holding only **$6,000**. This is the account designated
for all bank funds.

Additionally, the same exhibit includes the Plaintiff bank’s own policy, which states that:
“All money held by the bank must be stored in the corporate account.”

This evidence demonstrates:
- The Plaintiff’s bank is holding only $6,000 in its required corporate account.
- The Plaintiff is not maintaining substantial reserves or liquidity.
- The Plaintiff’s financial position is inconsistent with the claims made in this case.
- The Plaintiff’s own policy confirms that the corporate account balance represents the
bank’s actual funds.

iii. Relevance

These exhibits are directly relevant to:
- The Plaintiff’s financial credibility.
- The accuracy of the Plaintiff’s representations.
- The Plaintiff’s operational stability and compliance with its own policies.

iv. Request

The Defendant respectfully requests that Exhibits d‑003 and d‑004 be admitted into the
record as evidence of the Plaintiff’s financial condition and the inconsistency of its claims.

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

20,000 DCC in Compensatory damages due to lost income

10,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the damage done to the Plaintiff's business and reputation that was the direct consequence of the Defendant's statements. 'Defamation'

25,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the Business Earnings Damages incurred by the Defendant's statements 'LIBEL'

15,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the humiliation faced by the Plaintiff that was the direct consequence of the Defendant's statements 'SLANDER'

18,000 DCC in Punitive damages due to outrageous conduct of the Defendant 'Libel'

30% (26,400 DCC) in legal fees paid to Blackstone Law Group

Totalling 114,400 DCC

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ARGUMENT – EXCESSIVE AND UNSUPPORTED DAMAGES

The Defendant submits that the damages demanded by the Plaintiff, exceeding $100,000,
are grossly disproportionate, unsupported by evidence, and entirely unreasonable. Even if
the Defendant had committed the alleged wrongdoing, which the Defendant firmly denies,
the amount requested bears no rational relationship to any actual harm suffered.

i. Financial Reality of the Plaintiff

Exhibit d‑003 contains an admission from the Plaintiff’s own executive banker stating that
the bank generated only “2k in profits last month.” This demonstrates that the Plaintiff’s
operations are minimal and that its financial scale is far below what would justify a six‑figure
damage claim.

Exhibit d‑004 shows the Plaintiff’s corporate account holding only $6,000. The Plaintiff’s
own policy, visible in the same exhibit, states that all bank funds must be stored in the
corporate account. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s total accessible funds amount to $6,000.

ii. Disproportionate Damages

The Plaintiff is requesting damages exceeding $100,000 — an amount more than:
- **50 times** its monthly profit, and
- **16 times** its entire corporate balance.

Such a claim is not credible, not supported by any factual basis, and not proportionate to
the Plaintiff’s actual financial condition. The damages requested are speculative, inflated,
and punitive in nature rather than compensatory.

iii. Request

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court recognize the Plaintiff’s damages claim
as excessive, unsupported, and legally unjustifiable, and give it no weight in determining
liability or remedy.

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

4. Following publication of these statements, the Plaintiff experienced a decline in customer accounts and deposits, which the Plaintiff intends to demonstrate through business records. S1.6

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.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – RELEVANCE & PERJURY (S1.6)

The Defendant objects to the Plaintiff’s reliance on “S1.6” as alleged evidence of customer
losses. This material is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to any
verifiable business records, nor does it demonstrate any factual decline in customer accounts.

The Plaintiff claims in S1.6 that Meadowbrook Bank “experienced a decline in customer
accounts and deposits,” allegedly supported by “business records.” However, the Plaintiff’s
submitted proof consists solely of a private conversation between the bank owner and an
executive banker/staff member. This is not a business record, not a ledger, not a customer
report, and not an official financial document. It is a private chat message.

By presenting a private conversation as “business records,” the Plaintiff is misrepresenting
evidence to the Court. This constitutes perjury under the Redmont Civil Code, as the Plaintiff
is knowingly submitting false or misleading information and claiming it to be official data.

Because the Plaintiff’s claim of customer loss is based entirely on forged or mischaracterized
evidence, and not on actual records, S1.6 is irrelevant, inadmissible, and should be disregarded
in its entirety.

For these reasons, the Defendant objects to the admission or consideration of S1.6.

 

[xVoltrix]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
The Plaintiff moves for the discovery phase to be extended for the following reasons:
1. The Plaintiff's Counsel was officially changed around 13 hours ago, which is barely enough time to become familiar with the whole lawsuit before discovery ends due to personal real-life duties.
2. The implied 72 hours should be more than enough time to gain the needed familiarity to offer the Plaintiff the best possible representation
3. Should the extension prove to be too generous, the Plaintiff's Counsel will move - in good faith - for an early end of discovery

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

Further Discovered Evidence
This will be noted and utilized in the forthgoing proceedings.

However your Honour would like to draw your attention to B1.3 , B1.18 and B1.7,B1.12 in regards of the Answer to complaint ". The Defense DENIES all allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Any alleged “incriminating messages” were casual expressions, jokes, or misinterpreted slang, and do not demonstrate intent to evade judgment or conceal assets."

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – IRRELEVANT, OUT‑OF‑CONTEXT, AND NON‑PROBATIVE EVIDENCE (b1.1 – b1.22)

The Defendant objects to the Plaintiff’s submission of Exhibits b1.1 through b1.22. These materials consist entirely of private conversations, jokes among friends, unrelated chat messages, and out‑of‑context statements that have no connection to the claims of defamation at issue in this case.

None of these exhibits demonstrate:
-that the Defendant published false statements about the Plaintiff,
-that any customer left Meadowbrook Bank because of the Defendant,
-that any financial harm occurred,
-or that any element of libel, slander, or defamation is satisfied.

Specific objections to each exhibit are as follows:

b1.22 – The Defendant jokingly says “we celebrating with femboys or tomboys.” This is clearly humor among friends and has no relation to the Plaintiff, the bank, or the alleged defamation.

b1.17 – The Defendant is joking with friends. No connection to the Plaintiff or the case.

b1.18 – The Defendant jokes about “evading criminal charges.” This is plainly humor and has no bearing on the defamation claim.

b1.20 / b1.19 – Jokes about “celebrating with femboys.” Entirely irrelevant.

b1.21 – A screenshot of a friend (“karriet”) asking for legal advice. At that time, the Defendant had no contact with the Plaintiff. This is irrelevant and not connected to any defamation.

b1.16 – More joking among friends. No relevance.

b1.15 – More joking with his friend Rosangel (karriet). No true relevance.

b1.14 / b1.9 – The Defendant jokes about “mining out land.” This is unrelated to the Plaintiff’s defamation claims and are taken out of context.

b1.13 – The Defendant says he “has a strat.” This is vague, unrelated, and irrelevant.

b1.6 / b1.7 / b1.8 – The Defendant is talking with a friend (“rosangel/karriet”). These messages do not involve the Plaintiff, do not mention the bank, and do not relate to any defamation.

b1.11 – The Defendant expresses an opinion: “I would get banned before I work for those filthy meadowbrookers.” This is a private opinion, not a public defamatory statement, and not actionable under the Civil Code.

b1.12 - The messages are merely advice from a friend of the Defendant, they are irrelevant to the defamation claims.

b1.1 / b1.3 – The Defendant was upset and said his assets would be hidden. This is irrelevant to defamation and does not prove any damages.

b1.4 / b1.5 – The Defendant posts a humorous gif and continues joking. Completely irrelevant.

b1.1 / b1.2 – These messages are unrelated to the Plaintiff’s claims and contain no defamatory content.

None of these exhibits demonstrate any element of defamation. They do not show false statements about the Plaintiff, and they do not show causation or damages. They are private jokes, unrelated conversations, and irrelevant material submitted solely to prejudice the Court.

For these reasons, the Defendant objects to Exhibits b1.1 through b1.22 in their entirety and requests that they be disregarded as irrelevant, immaterial, and non‑probative.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
The Plaintiff moves for the discovery phase to be extended for the following reasons:
1. The Plaintiff's Counsel was officially changed around 13 hours ago, which is barely enough time to become familiar with the whole lawsuit before discovery ends due to personal real-life duties.
2. The implied 72 hours should be more than enough time to gain the needed familiarity to offer the Plaintiff the best possible representation
3. Should the extension prove to be too generous, the Plaintiff's Counsel will move - in good faith - for an early end of discovery

Granted, discovery extended to 8/11/26 at 9pm EDT.

 

[Muggy21]

@ItsLoLbrine

Reaching out to me via a DM regarding a live case is ex-parte communication. As this is your first offense, the Court will show leniency. You shall be fined $1,000 and imprisoned for 30 minutes.

 

[Muggy21]

No witnesses were requested, thus a trial is not warranted. Parties will now submit a long-form closing statement outlining all arguments, factual assertions, and all other points parties believe should be included in this Court's adjudication.


@xVoltrix You have 72 Hours to provide that statement, @ItsLoLbrine you have 72 Hours thereafter.

 

[xVoltrix]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

FACTUAL ASSERTIONS
1. The Defendant posted an ad in-game stating the following: "never bank with meadowbrook bank they I love DemocracyCraft!ing suck never bank with them i hate meadowbrook bank I love DemocracyCraft! meadowbrook". [S1.1]
2. This ad was screenshotted and posted in a discord server, with the sender asking who owns the bank. This should be interpreted as a preventive inquiry to ensure they don't make a mistake when choosing their bank. [S1.2]
3. Another person saw this post and responded to it. After that, they asked the Plaintiff what they had done. This is a sign that this person believed the Plaintiff was involved in a scandal of sorts and it could lead to distrust. [S1.4]
4. The Defendant said "I woud get BANNED before i work for those filthy meadowbrookers" to another person on discord. [B1.11]
5. The Defendant said "i pray for whoever would bank with them" to another person on discord. [B1.12]
6. The Defendant has on multiple occasions strongly insinuated that they are guilty of this tort. [S1.5, S1.7, Sl 2.1, B1.7, B1.11, B1.12, B1.14]
7. The Defendant mentioned evading any and all fines 9 times. [Sl 1.4, Sl 1.5, Sl 2.1, B1.2, B1.3, B1.6, B1.7, B1.15, B1.18]
8. The Defendant said in a public chat in-game that "no matter how much it takes to get me in redmont court [they are] NOT coming" [Sl 1.3]

ARGUMENTS

Defamation is defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act as follows:

1. Defamation

Violation Type: Intentional

Remedy: An order for public retraction

A person commits a violation if the person:

(a) makes a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation;

(b) the statement is made to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and

(c) the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion.

This violation shall not occur where:

(d) the statement is substantially true; or

(e) the statement is a genuinely held opinion based on disclosed facts;

(f) the statement was made in the course of legitimate political communication;

(g) the plaintiff consented to the publication.

Slander is defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act as follows:

3. Slander

Violation Type: Intentional

Remedy: An order for public retraction

A person commits a violation if the person:

(a) commits defamation as defined in Section 1 of this Part; and

(b) the defamatory statement is made verbally, through Discord messages, or in-game messages; and

(c) the statement defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.

This violation shall not occur where:

(d) the defences set out in Section 1 of this Part shall apply

Throughout the events stated in facts 1-3, the Defendant has committed defamation by:
- (a) making a false statement and/or communication that injured the Plaintiff's reputation
- (b) the statement being made to a lot more than one person other than the Plaintiff
- (c) and the statement being presented as fact rather than opinion
through stating "never bank with meadowbrook bank they I love DemocracyCraft!ing suck".
In addition:
- (b) the defamatory statement was expressed through /ad, which is an extremely public form of in-game message
- (c) the statement defamed the Plaintiff’s reputation and business
This statement has caused harm to the Plaintiff's reputation by sowing suspicion with other people - as shown in facts 2 and 3 - and has likely led to potential clients bringing their business to another bank.
The Plaintiff has faced an extreme amount of humiliation and the harm to their reputation might not be reparable.

Furthermore, the Defendant has shown a complete lack of respect towards the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont and due to the sheer amount of statements the Defendant themself has made, it would be reasonable to assume that:
- they are guilty of this tort, as shown in fact 6
- they would attempt to evade any and all fines imposed on them by the District Court, as shown in fact 7
- they lack a basic respect for the Judiciary, as shown in fact 8

FURTHER POINTS

The Standard of Proof is defined in the Judicial Standards Act as follows:

3. Standard of Proof
(1) The litigant with the burden of proof must prove the case:
(a) In a civil proceeding, on a balance of probabilities;
(b) In a criminal proceeding, beyond a reasonable doubt; and
(c) In an application for a warrant, on probable cause.

In the eyes of the Plaintiff, more than enough evidence has been introduced to the court to prove that, on a balance of probabilities, the Defendant has committed Defamation and Slander.
In addition, according to the following criteria for outrageous conduct:

3. Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.

(2) Award:
(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.
(b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:
(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss;
(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person;
(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur;
(iv) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;
(v) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences; or
(vi) The conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone.
(c) In the event that punitive damages are being argued because an authorised statute grants it, the award shall be limited by the amount granted by law.
(d) In assessing punitive damages, courts shall consider the character of the defendant’s act, the nature and extent of the harm, and the defendant’s wealth.

it is reasonable to assume that the Defendant:
- (i) intended to cause harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, which led to a loss of business
- (ii) acted knowingly that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience the Plaintiff
- (iii) even if they weren’t aware of the harm their reckless conduct would lead to, acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur
which would qualify the Plaintiff to gain punitive damages.

In conclusion, the Plaintiff requests a modified prayer of relief of:

30,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the damage done to the Plaintiff's business and reputation that was the direct consequence of the Defendant's statements.

20,000 DCC in Consequential Damages due to the humiliation faced by the Plaintiff that was the direct consequence of the Defendant's statements

25,000 DCC in Punitive Damages due to outrageous conduct of the Defendant

30% (22,500 DCC) in legal fees paid to Blackstone Law Group

Totalling 97,500 DCC

 

[ItsLoLbrine]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

I. SUMMARY OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant committed Defamation, Slander, and Libel through various in‑game and Discord statements. The Plaintiff further alleges reputational harm, financial loss, humiliation, and outrageous conduct. The Defendant denies each allegation and submits that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof required.


II. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ASSERTIONS

1. The Defendant acknowledges that an /ad message was published, but denies that it contained any factual allegation. The message consisted entirely of subjective opinion, dissatisfaction, and hyperbolic language, which are not actionable under the Redmont Civil Code Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s interpretation of Discord chatter as “preventive inquiry” is speculative and not a factual assertion. Speculation cannot be treated as evidence.

3. The Plaintiff’s claim that a third party “believed the Plaintiff was involved in a scandal” is unsupported. A Discord user asking a question does not constitute reputational harm, especially considering the user’s prior message included “lmao,” indicating amusement rather than concern.

4–5. The Discord statements cited by the Plaintiff (“filthy meadowbrookers”, “I pray for whoever would bank with them”) are insults, jokes, or expressions of opinion. They are not factual claims and therefore cannot constitute defamation or slander.

6. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant “strongly insinuated guilt” is not a fact but a legal conclusion. The Plaintiff cannot insert conclusions into the factual section of a complaint.

7. The Plaintiff’s reliance on slang expressions such as “evade fines” is misplaced. These remarks were casual jokes, hyperbole, or non‑serious statements made in informal conversation. They do not demonstrate intent, wrongdoing, or any element of defamation. Furthermore, several of the exhibits cited by the Plaintiff do not support their claim at all:

- B1.6 contains nothing related to evading fines or wrongdoing; it is merely the Defendant stating they intend to “hop on the game.”
- B1.2 and B1.3 are identical in substance and contain no incriminating content.
- B1.15 is not an independent piece of evidence; it simply repeats content already present in B1.7 and B1.3, offering no new information.

The Plaintiff’s attempt to inflate the number of “evading fines” statements by counting irrelevant, duplicated, or contextless messages is misleading and demonstrates a lack of evidentiary integrity.

8. The Defendant’s informal remark about not attending court is irrelevant to the tort alleged and has no probative value.


III. FAILURE TO PROVE DEFAMATION OR SLANDER

Under Part V Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, defamation requires:

(a) a false statement of fact
(b) communicated to a third party
(c) presented as fact rather than opinion

The Plaintiff has failed to prove elements (a) and (c). The Defendant made no factual allegation about Meadowbrook Bank. The statements were opinions, hyperbole, and expressions of dissatisfaction.

Under Part V Section 3, slander requires the same elements. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated any false factual claim.


IV. FAILURE TO PROVE DAMAGES

The Plaintiff’s entire damages claim relies on S1.6, which they describe as “business records.”

However, S1.6 is not a business record.

S1.6 is a private conversation between:

- the owner of Meadowbrook Bank, and
- an executive banker of Meadowbrook Bank

This is not a customer.
This is not a business record.
This is not evidence of financial loss.

The Plaintiff knowingly misrepresented this conversation as “business records” in an attempt to fabricate damages.


V. PERJURY BY THE PLAINTIFF

Under Redmont law, perjury occurs when a party knowingly submits false or misleading evidence to the Court.

By presenting S1.6 — a private conversation between two staff members — as:

- “business records,”
- “customer loss,” and
- “financial damages,”

the Plaintiff has knowingly submitted false evidence.

This constitutes perjury, undermines the credibility of the entire Complaint, and warrants sanctions.


VI. REQUEST FOR FEES AND SANCTIONS

Because the Plaintiff submitted perjured evidence and forced the Defendant to expend time and resources rebutting knowingly false material, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court award appropriate fees or sanctions to compensate for the burden imposed by the Plaintiff’s misconduct.

VII. STANDARD OF PROOF

Under the Judicial Standards Act, the Plaintiff must prove their case on a balance of probabilities.

They have not done so.

They have provided:

- no factual false statement,
- no valid business records,
- no evidence of damages,
- and one piece of evidence (S1.6) that constitutes perjury.


VIII. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

- the Plaintiff has failed to prove Defamation, Slander, or Libel;
- the Plaintiff has failed to prove damages;
- the Plaintiff has submitted perjured evidence;
- and the Plaintiff’s Closing Statement relies on speculation rather than fact.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

- dismiss the Complaint in its entirety,
- deny all claims for damages,
- award fees or sanctions as appropriate,
- and consider sanctions for perjury arising from the submission of S1.6.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court will enter recess in 48 Hours. If you wish to object, make a motion, or some other action, please do so within that time frame.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court enters recess.