Lawsuit: Pending NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6

[Novakerbal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


NovaKerbal
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On January 18th, 2026 the Town Council of Oakridge made a public announcement to all Oakridge residents accusing the plaintiff of murder, "serious criminal offense", domestic terrorism, violation of lawful assembly, and violation of public safety. The only allegation substantiated by the DHS at the time was a singular unpublished wanted star given to the Plaintiff. Neither has any Court Ruling been posted to substantiate any indictable crimes claim at the time the announcement was posted. The Town of Oakridge does not have the legal jurisdiction to convict any of these alleged actions or crimes aside from Disorderly Conduct, which the Town has failed to summarily convict the Plaintiff of prior to the posting of the slanderous announcement. This amount to a violation of the No More Defamation Act, as the Town Council of Oakridge (the directors of the Town; a public entity) published a statement filled with unsubstantiated assertions, accusing the Plaintiff of conduct which at the time of the announcement had not been confirmed by any entity with legal jurisdiction. This slander and libel directly harmed NovaKerbal's reputation, as it accused her of serious crimes and made these accusations to the public. The Town Council of Oakridge has no right to use the bully pulpit and their elected office in order to slander individuals who have not been duly convicted of a crime.

I. PARTIES
1. NovaKerbal (Plaintiff)
2. JustaHumpling (Posted on behalf of the Council)
3. Town Council of Oakridge (Collectively)(Directors)
4. Town of Oakridge (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On January 18th, 2026, JustaHumpling posted the statement in the official announcements channel for the Town of Oakridge, on behalf of the Town Council of Oakridge (P-001).
2. As of the posting of this announcement, only 1 singular murder charge had been levied against the Plaintiff in relation to the accused crimes (P-002).
3. As of the posting of this announcement, no case had been filed, nor had any Judicial Officer ruled that the Plaintiff had committed any indictable crime in relation to the alleged events.
4. The announcement claims that NovaKerbal had killed "all attending members and presenters", committed Domestic Terrorism, along with violating public safety and lawful assembly protections (P-001).
5. Domestic Terrorism is not a crime defined by the Criminal Code Act.
6. The Town Council of Oakridge made several false statements, as they accused the Plaintiff of crimes that at the time of the announcement, had not been litigated. Thus the statements were verifiable false, as the Town Council of Oakridge does not have the jurisdiction to unilaterally declare such crimes.
7. The Announcement severely harmed the Plaintiff's public reputation and Right to a Fair Trial by asserting that she was guilty of said crimes, publicly branding the Plaintiff as a domestic terrorist and criminal.
8. §5(6)(b)(i) of the Legal Entity Act states that "For the purposes of this act all members of the Town Council shall be considered directors of the town public entity."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant posted multiple false statements through official government channels with the intention of publicly harming the Plaintiff's reputation. Constituting both Libel and Slander under the No More Defamation Act.
2. The Plaintiff's reputation was severely damaged, as members of the public now believe her to be a Mass Shooter and/or Domestic Terrorist based on the publicized statement (P-003).

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 25,000$ in Compensatory Damages for the egregious reputational harm that the Plaintiff has suffered in the public eye due to the actions of the Town Council of Oakridge.
2. 20,000$ in Punitive Damages for the blatant misuse of permissions granted by the Elected Office to publish libel and slander. Constituting outrageous conduct, as the Town Council of Oakridge acted willingly to target the Plaintiff with malicious, slanderous, and provably false allegations at the time of the posting of the announcement.
3. A retraction of the offending announcement and a public apology pursuant to the No More Defamation Act.

Evidence List

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

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 18th day of January, 2026

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Dogeington, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6

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.

 

[Dogeington]

Your honor, I do not represent the town of Oakridge in this case, that is the job of the mayor

 

[Novakerbal]

Apologies your Honor, I recognized a typo in the facts stating February 2026, this has not occurred yet. I have amended it to correctly state January

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Sofia2750 , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6

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.

 

[ameslap]

Your honor, Sofia is on leave of absence and as such I am Acting Mayor here to represent the town.

I will be accompanied by our town Attorney General @Franciscus.

 

[dearev]

Your honor, Sofia is on leave of absence and as such I am Acting Mayor here to represent the town.

I will be accompanied by our town Attorney General @Franciscus.

You shall have 48 hours to present an answer to complaint.

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour,

I respectfully request to submit an amicus brief to assist the Court in considering relevant precedent and the legal framework applicable to defamation.

 

[Anthony_Org]

I was there, atleast 6 or 7 people died

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

I respectfully request to submit an amicus brief to assist the Court in considering relevant precedent and the legal framework applicable to defamation.

Granted. provide within 48 hours.

I was there, atleast 6 or 7 people died

Anthony_Org shall be held in contempt of court and shall be fined 5 penalty units, this message is struck. please refrain from making statements in court without being summoned.

 

[Franciscus]

You shall have 48 hours to present an answer to complaint.

Your Honor,

The Town of Oakridge requests a 24-hour extension.

 

[dearev]

Your Honor,

The Town of Oakridge requests a 24-hour extension.

Granted. @ Jan 21, 2026 9:09pm EST

 

[Anthony_Org]

Granted. provide within 48 hours.

Anthony_Org shall be held in contempt of court and shall be fined 5 penalty units, this message is struck. please refrain from making statements in court without being summoned.

Spoiler: Struck

 

[dearev]

View attachment 72757

This is struck, you are yet again charged with contempt of court and shall pay 10 penalty units and face 5 minutes jail time. as previously said, please refrain from making statements in court without being summoned.

 

[ameslap]

Answer to Complaint

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

Novakerbal
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. DENY. The Town Council never voted on the message.
2. AFFIRM. Noting that charges on record at the time of posting do not mean that there will not be any further charges for the accused crime.
3. AFFIRM. Recognizing that murder is a summary charge and not indictable.
4. DENY. Plaintiff alleges that the statement alleged Plaintiff “committed” Domestic Terrorism, and had “violat[ed] public safety and lawful assembly protections”. The Defense contests the use of “committed” inasmuch as it might imply a concrete crime and the word did not appear in the filing, and contests the term “protections” inasmuch as protections for public safety and lawful assembly were not mentioned.
5. AFFIRM.
6. DENY.
7. DENY.
8. AFFIRM.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff has self-identified as a terrorist. There can be no reputational harm since the Plaintiff and the public were already aware that the Plaintiff identifies as a terrorist. (D-001)

2. Plaintiff admits to killing 5-7 people at the incident. While they may have only been charged with a single crime, the Plaintiff has admitted to killing more. (D-002)

3. The statement does not rise to defamation. The Town’s statement does not constitute a false communication that injured the plaintiff’s reputation.

4. No Reputational Harm Suffered. The Plaintiff is still serving in their capacity as a member of the Legislation Committee of the Workers’ Party of Redmont, employed by the Health, Justice, and Education Departments, and owns 6 businesses within the nation. (D-003, D-004, D-005)

5. No evidence that the Council approved the message. The Plaintiff is suing the Town of Oakridge. However, the Plaintiff is incorrect to assume that the statement was actually approved by a formal vote or represented the Council, which cuts against the Town of Oakridge’s alleged liability. (D-006)

By making this submission, I agree that 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 21st Day of January 2026.

Evidence

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

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

Novakerbal
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. DENY. The Town Council never voted on the message.
2. AFFIRM. Noting that charges on record at the time of posting do not mean that there will not be any further charges for the accused crime.
3. AFFIRM. Recognizing that murder is a summary charge and not indictable.
4. DENY. Plaintiff alleges that the statement alleged Plaintiff “committed” Domestic Terrorism, and had “violat[ed] public safety and lawful assembly protections”. The Defense contests the use of “committed” inasmuch as it might imply a concrete crime and the word did not appear in the filing, and contests the term “protections” inasmuch as protections for public safety and lawful assembly were not mentioned.
5. AFFIRM.
6. DENY.
7. DENY.
8. AFFIRM.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff has self-identified as a terrorist. There can be no reputational harm since the Plaintiff and the public were already aware that the Plaintiff identifies as a terrorist. (D-001)

2. Plaintiff admits to killing 5-7 people at the incident. While they may have only been charged with a single crime, the Plaintiff has admitted to killing more. (D-002)

3. The statement does not rise to defamation. The Town’s statement does not constitute a false communication that injured the plaintiff’s reputation.

4. No Reputational Harm Suffered. The Plaintiff is still serving in their capacity as a member of the Legislation Committee of the Workers’ Party of Redmont, employed by the Health, Justice, and Education Departments, and owns 6 businesses within the nation. (D-003, D-004, D-005)

5. No evidence that the Council approved the message. The Plaintiff is suing the Town of Oakridge. However, the Plaintiff is incorrect to assume that the statement was actually approved by a formal vote or represented the Council, which cuts against the Town of Oakridge’s alleged liability. (D-006)

By making this submission, I agree that 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 21st Day of January 2026.

Evidence

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 72795

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 72796

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 72797

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 72798

Spoiler: D-005

View attachment 72799

Spoiler: D-006

View attachment 72800

Thank you.
We shall now begin discovery lasting 5 days.
Discovery end @ Jan 28th 2026, 5:23pm EST

 

[Anthony_Org]

your honor can I file an Amicus brief on the town of Oakridge?

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense moves to compel the Plaintiff to provide any exculpatory information in their possession, consistent with the Duty to Disclose under Part III, Section 15 of the Criminal Code Act. This includes, but is not limited to:

1. Any written or electronic communications in the Plaintiff's possession indicating current and/or past membership in a terrorist organization or an organization that advocates political violence;
2. Any screenshots, minecraft logs, or other files generated from DemocracyCraft that are in the possession of the Plaintiff on 18 January 2025;

Defense notes that Plaintiff has a right to avoid self-incrimination, but also that, in being a Plaintiff choosing to sue us, we have rights to obtain materials for our defense - this constitutes a reasonable limitation on rights. Plaintiff must obey the Discovery rules; failure to provide information of this sort should warrant an adverse inference against the Plaintiff.

 

[ToadKing]

Granted. provide within 48 hours.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour, I respectfully submit this brief to assist the Court in considering prior cases that may inform the evidentiary standards applicable to this defamation action. This brief does not advocate for either party but seeks to provide the Court with an analysis of how similar cases have been adjudicated in the Commonwealth.

​

I. THE THREE-PART TEST FOR DEFAMATION​

In Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67, the District Court adopted a three-part test for defamation claims, stating:

Precedent set in [2025] FCR 5 and later confirmed in [2025] DCR 14 sets the following as standards for defamation which can be applied for libel and slander:

1. The Statement has to be Published
2. The statement has to be False
3. The statement has to cause reputational harm

In [2025] DCR 67, the Court found that the first two requirements had been fulfilled but held that "the plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that reputational harm occurred." Consequently, while legal fees were awarded at a reduced rate, no damages were awarded for slander and libel. This establishes that all three elements must be proven with sufficient evidence, and meeting two of three elements does not result in damages absent proof of reputational harm.

​

II. EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS FOR PROVING REPUTATIONAL HARM​

[2025] DCR 67 demonstrates that assertions of harm, without supporting evidence, are insufficient. More instructive is xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1, where the District Court dismissed a defamation claim sua sponte for insufficient evidence of damages. The Court stated:

While the plaintiff claims that the damages are "unmeasurable", which may be true to their extent, [they have] failed to provide or mention any evidence of damages. Even if the totality of the damages were unmeasurable as the plaintiff claims, they still need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred.

Regarding reputational harm specifically, the Court in [2025] DCR 1 found:

The evidence shows a player being told an alleged defamatory comment. Even if the comment was false the information was not new to the person as they "remember that" meaning this person's image of the plaintiff most likely did not change as no new information was provided. As for everyone else, they were unchanged or ignored the comment.

The case was dismissed with prejudice.

These cases establish that evidence of reputational harm requires more than single-source commentary or assertions that damage occurred. Courts appear to require evidence showing that individuals' perceptions actually changed because of the statement, such as multiple witnesses demonstrating changed perception, evidence of concrete consequences, or documentation of measurable impacts flowing from the reputational harm.

​

III. LIMITATIONS ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN DEFAMATION CASES​

In RealImza v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 74, the Court addressed pleading requirements for punitive damages in defamation cases. The Court held:

The Plaintiff, however, sought only punitive damages, undoubtedly an extraordinary remedy, without first alleging any ordinary or non-outrageous harm. To claim that an incident was “outrageous,” one must first plead that some lesser, non-outrageous wrong occurred; the Plaintiff skipped this step and leapt straight to outrage without establishing a foundational cause of action.

The Court further stated:

For something to be outrageous, the Court must accept that the underlying action is to be so obvious that a reasonable person can view the harm and immediately accept the controversy as a harm; That does not exist in a defamation case.

This specifies that plaintiffs must establish foundational damages before seeking punitive damages, and courts will not award punitive damages for "outrageous" conduct without first establishing that non-outrageous harm occurred.

​

IV. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND PECUNIARY LOSS​

The Legal Damages Act, Section 4(2)(a) provides that:

(2) Award:
(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.

In [2025] DCR 67, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated pecuniary loss through evidence of $800 in legal fees incurred (Exhibit P-006), but the Court did not award compensatory damages for reputational harm absent such proof. Absent proof of pecuniary loss, awards may be limited to nominal damages, which are capped at $7,500 per Section 6 of the Legal Damages Act.

​

V. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PRESENT CASE​

Without advocating for either party, the Court may wish to consider how the evidence presented compares to these prior cases.

1. Regarding publication and falsity, the parties dispute the accuracy of the Town Council's statement. P-002 shows that one murder charge had been issued against the Plaintiff at the time of the statement. However, the Town Council's announcement (P-001) stated that the Plaintiff "killed all attending members and presenters" and committed "domestic terrorism" along with violations of "public safety and lawful assembly." The Court may consider whether these characterisations constitute false statements when only a single murder charge had been issued. The parties may also address whether a government entity's public characterisation of events - made before any judicial determination - can be evaluated as defamatory when some law enforcement action (one charge) had been taken but the broader claims had not been substantiated.

2. Regarding reputational harm, the Plaintiff has submitted P-003 as evidence that "members of the public now believe her to be a Mass Shooter and/or Domestic Terrorist based on the publicized statement." Under the standards established in [2025] DCR 67 and [2025] DCR 1, the Court may assess whether this single-source commentary meets the evidentiary threshold for proving reputational harm. Specifically, the Court may consider whether P-003 demonstrates that the commenter's perception changed because of the Town Council's statement, or whether the commenter's awareness may have existed independently from other sources. The Court may also evaluate whether additional evidence of changed perception, concrete consequences, or measurable impacts has been or could be presented.

3. Regarding damages, the Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages for "egregious reputational harm." Under Section 4(2)(a) of the Legal Damages Act and [2025] DCR 67, the Court should consider whether the Plaintiff has provided proof of pecuniary loss - such as "harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities" - or whether the damages claimed are based solely on reputational harm without documented financial impact. The Plaintiff also seeks $20,000 in punitive damages for "outrageous conduct." Under [2025] DCR 74, the Court may consider whether foundational damages have been established before punitive damages can be awarded, and whether the conduct meets the standard of being "so obvious that a reasonable person can view the harm and immediately accept the controversy as a harm" - a standard the presiding officer in [2025] DCR 74 indicated does not typically exist in defamation cases.

​

VI. CONCLUSION​

Recent cases in this Court establish clear frameworks for evaluating defamation claims in Redmont, particularly regarding the quantum of evidence required to prove reputational harm and the proper pleading of different categories of damages. This brief hopefully provides the Court with an analysis of these comparable cases to assist in applying established legal standards to the facts of this case.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Novakerbal]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff wishes to enter the following piece of evidence into Discovery at this time

P-004 (See Attached) A PDF containing a collection of screenshots of Discord messages showing multiple instances of public perception of the Plaintiff following the posting of the announcement containing the alleged defamatory statements.

 

[Novakerbal]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Defense moves to compel the Plaintiff to provide any exculpatory information in their possession, consistent with the Duty to Disclose under Part III, Section 15 of the Criminal Code Act. This includes, but is not limited to:

1. Any written or electronic communications in the Plaintiff's possession indicating current and/or past membership in a terrorist organization or an organization that advocates political violence;
2. Any screenshots, minecraft logs, or other files generated from DemocracyCraft that are in the possession of the Plaintiff on 18 January 2025;

Defense notes that Plaintiff has a right to avoid self-incrimination, but also that, in being a Plaintiff choosing to sue us, we have rights to obtain materials for our defense - this constitutes a reasonable limitation on rights. Plaintiff must obey the Discovery rules; failure to provide information of this sort should warrant an adverse inference against the Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defense requests multiple hours of logs, as well as many screenshots. The majority of which have no bearing whatsoever on the events in this case. The Plaintiff humbly requests that the 2nd section of the motion to compel be modified to include only information directly connected to the events of this case.

Furthermore, while the Plaintiff does not object in principle to the 1st request, we would like to remind the Defense that private messages both through DMs and in Discord are absolutely private, and are not appropriate to compel the release of. Indeed the Staff Warrant Policy regards them as completely private. If staff have no power to release said private messages, than neither does this court.

Any further information regarding suspected membership in such organizations is available publicly, the Defense is capable of seeking out this information themselves. However the Plaintiff will acquiesce to the disclosure of membership, but cannot provide any "written or electronic communication" as a backup to the information, aside from what is already publicly available.

 

[Novakerbal]

Answer to Complaint

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

Novakerbal
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. DENY. The Town Council never voted on the message.
2. AFFIRM. Noting that charges on record at the time of posting do not mean that there will not be any further charges for the accused crime.
3. AFFIRM. Recognizing that murder is a summary charge and not indictable.
4. DENY. Plaintiff alleges that the statement alleged Plaintiff “committed” Domestic Terrorism, and had “violat[ed] public safety and lawful assembly protections”. The Defense contests the use of “committed” inasmuch as it might imply a concrete crime and the word did not appear in the filing, and contests the term “protections” inasmuch as protections for public safety and lawful assembly were not mentioned.
5. AFFIRM.
6. DENY.
7. DENY.
8. AFFIRM.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff has self-identified as a terrorist. There can be no reputational harm since the Plaintiff and the public were already aware that the Plaintiff identifies as a terrorist. (D-001)

2. Plaintiff admits to killing 5-7 people at the incident. While they may have only been charged with a single crime, the Plaintiff has admitted to killing more. (D-002)

3. The statement does not rise to defamation. The Town’s statement does not constitute a false communication that injured the plaintiff’s reputation.

4. No Reputational Harm Suffered. The Plaintiff is still serving in their capacity as a member of the Legislation Committee of the Workers’ Party of Redmont, employed by the Health, Justice, and Education Departments, and owns 6 businesses within the nation. (D-003, D-004, D-005)

5. No evidence that the Council approved the message. The Plaintiff is suing the Town of Oakridge. However, the Plaintiff is incorrect to assume that the statement was actually approved by a formal vote or represented the Council, which cuts against the Town of Oakridge’s alleged liability. (D-006)

By making this submission, I agree that 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 21st Day of January 2026.

Evidence

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 72795

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 72796

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 72797

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 72798

Spoiler: D-005

View attachment 72799

Spoiler: D-006

View attachment 72800

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Assumes facts not in evidence

II. DEFENSES 2. States that the Plaintiff has admitted to killing multiple people. This is false, the provided evidence D-002 shows the Plaintiff stating that they "shot 5-7 people". Being shot does not necessarily mean that the person was killed, as all gunshots are not inherently lethal.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

II. DEFENSES 4. States that the Plaintiff owns 6 businesses within Redmont. While the Plaintiff owns 6 "firms", these firms receive no revenue, nor profit, nor employ any individuals, they are merely ornamental names rather than evidence of genuine economic success. The majority of the listed firms have received little to no use, and are not relevant to proving whether the Plaintiff has suffered reputational damage, as firms would remain regardless of any fallout.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

The Defense requests multiple hours of logs, as well as many screenshots. The majority of which have no bearing whatsoever on the events in this case. The Plaintiff humbly requests that the 2nd section of the motion to compel be modified to include only information directly connected to the events of this case.

Furthermore, while the Plaintiff does not object in principle to the 1st request, we would like to remind the Defense that private messages both through DMs and in Discord are absolutely private, and are not appropriate to compel the release of. Indeed the Staff Warrant Policy regards them as completely private. If staff have no power to release said private messages, than neither does this court.

Any further information regarding suspected membership in such organizations is available publicly, the Defense is capable of seeking out this information themselves. However the Plaintiff will acquiesce to the disclosure of membership, but cannot provide any "written or electronic communication" as a backup to the information, aside from what is already publicly available.

Response

Your Honor,

The defense has no opposition to narrowing the timespan to being the thirty minutes before the start of the press conference and the hour following.

The defense also responds regarding the Plaintiff's misinterpretation of the Staff Warrant policy. As it pertains to direct messages, "Individuals can subpoena" (emphasis mine) such messages; the policy is simply that the Staff team will not intervene to provide them ("there is no staff remedy if no party is willing to consent"). In this way, the Court is not prohibited to issue a subpoena to order the Plaintiff to compel such information. It is utterly false to argue, as Plaintiff erroneously does, that "If staff have no power to release said private messages, than neither does this court" when the policy explicitly permits subpoenas to be issued.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the following from the Department of Homeland Security (or, failing them, the Plaintiff herself) and for the following reasons:

1. The complete criminal record of NovaKerbal.
   • Reason: The Plaintiff claims that "[t]he Plaintiff's reputation was severely damaged, as members of the public now believe her to be a Mass Shooter and/or Domestic Terrorist based on the publicized statement." The Town of Oakridge seeks to contest this notion by examining the pre-existing reputation of the Plaintiff and examining the Plaintiff's criminal past.

 

[Novakerbal]

Motion

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

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the following from the Department of Homeland Security (or, failing them, the Plaintiff herself) and for the following reasons:

1. The complete criminal record of NovaKerbal.
   • Reason: The Plaintiff claims that "[t]he Plaintiff's reputation was severely damaged, as members of the public now believe her to be a Mass Shooter and/or Domestic Terrorist based on the publicized statement." The Town of Oakridge seeks to contest this notion by examining the pre-existing reputation of the Plaintiff and examining the Plaintiff's criminal past.

Your Honor and the Defense
I provided consent for the Defense, @ameslap to request my criminal record from staff prior to the beginning of this case in order to expedite the discovery process. Unless @ameslap no longer represents the Defendant, or their was some issue with this process, then this motion to compel is redundant.

 

[Novakerbal]

Response

Your Honor,

The defense has no opposition to narrowing the timespan to being the thirty minutes before the start of the press conference and the hour following.

The defense also responds regarding the Plaintiff's misinterpretation of the Staff Warrant policy. As it pertains to direct messages, "Individuals can subpoena" (emphasis mine) such messages; the policy is simply that the Staff team will not intervene to provide them ("there is no staff remedy if no party is willing to consent"). In this way, the Court is not prohibited to issue a subpoena to order the Plaintiff to compel such information. It is utterly false to argue, as Plaintiff erroneously does, that "If staff have no power to release said private messages, than neither does this court" when the policy explicitly permits subpoenas to be issued.

Regarding the first point, the Plaintiff will now post the relevant files

Note that the .txt file is the Minecraft logs for the relevant timeframe (30 minutes prior 1 hour after), and are unedited from their original state besides being renamed.

Note that the .pdf file containing all screenshots from the relevant timeframe are all unrelated to the case, and while the Plaintiff will submit them in good faith, they have no bearing on the case at hand

The Plaintiff believes that this should satisfy the Defense's second section of the motion to compel. We will refrain from actioning the first half until the Honorable Magistrate has ruled on the Objection.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Defense submits the following materials:

Spoiler: Exhibit D-007

Constitution Thread 'Town Constitution'

Sep 1, 2021

PREAMBLE
We the Citizens of the Town of Oakridge, in order to form a more perfect country, establish this Constitution to guarantee the preservation and protection of Justice, promote the general welfare of our Citizens, and secure the liberty of our participation in the governance of this Town. All the Citizens and the Government of the Town of Oakridge...

• Town of Oakridge
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Town of Oakridge

• 
• 
• 

What’s more, the Defense adds the following individuals to its witness list:

• Angryhamdog
• Sofia2750
• zLost

Motion

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

Your Honor:

The Town of Oakridge seek dismissal of the complaint under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), 5.5 (Lack of Claim), and 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). In support thereof, the Town respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff’s factual error is fatal to the case​

Under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), a case may be dismissed when “it is clear through the course of discovery that the plaintiff made a factual error in their complaint or amended complaint”.

The Plaintiff, in their first factual allegation, alleges that “JustaHumpling posted the statement in the official announcements channel for the Town of Oakridge, on behalf of the Town Council of Oakridge”. Upon review of the record as is stands in discovery, this was an error.

The Town Council never voted to put out a statement, and a review of the conversations of the Council show only two council members (one being JustaDumpling and the other being ElysiaCrynn) supported putting out some statement (see: Exhibit D-006). At the time that JustaDumpling (whose nickname of JustaHumpling is seen in screenshots) posted the message, no record of any vote nor majority support among the Town Council—much less any formal resolution—had been discussed in the Town Council chat (ibid). The Town’s constitution (included as Exhibit D-007, and available on the forums) requires majority support for the passage of Acts of Council (See: Oak. Const Article 1(1), “The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass Legislation on any topic through a majority vote of approval of its Members”.)

Thus, the statement, while its text purports to represent the Town Council as a whole, does not actually do so. Just as a single Representative or Senator making a post in #briefing and claiming to represent the will of the Congress does not make it so, the same goes for individual members of the Town Council who make announcements on their own initiative.

While this ties into standing below, this is enough to dismiss, as the factual error is clear and fatal to the Plaintiff’s case.

2. The Plaintiff lacks standing​

Under 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction), a case may be dismissed when “the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case”.

Standing itself is described in Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) as requiring all of the following to be present:

1. [The Plaintiff s]uffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

Firstly: In this case, the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a case against the Town of Oakridge because the first element fails—the Plaintiff has not shown that an injury was caused by the Town as the “clear second party”, and has not shown any application of law that affected them. The basis for standing (alleging that the Town itself actually issued a statement) is demonstrably false under review of the Town Record (see the first section in this post)—the Council never actually approved the message which the Plaintiff alleges cause reputational harm.

Separately, the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek certain prayers for relief. In particular, as the message was sent by JustaDumpling (not the Council), there is no lawful mechanism to compel the Town to retract and apologize—such relief under the No More Defamation Act may only be granted against parties who actually publish such statements.

3. Lack of Claim​

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal “may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge”.

The Plaintiff presents two separate claims for relief. The first claim for relief is an allegation of libel and slander, citing the No More Defamation Act. We will hold that aside for now.

The second Claim for relief, however, appears to merely a claim that reputation was damaged. Mere damage to reputation alone does not warrant separate relief in law, and no law is cited to support such a claim.

Even if we were to construct this as a poorly formatted addendum to the first claim for relief, the evidence-in-case cuts clearly against applying defamation in this way.

As the logs provided by the Plaintiff indicate, the Plaintiff:

1. Killed Sofia2750 at 15:59:11.
2. Shot at Angryhamdog and killed him at 15:59:13.
3. Shot at zLost at 15:59:14.
4. Shot at Angryhamdog and killed him at 16:00:38.
5. Shot at zLost at 16:00:39.
6. Shot at Angryhamdog and killed him at 16:00:57.
7. Shot at zLost an Sofia2750 at 16:02:14.
8. Killed Sofia2750 at 16:02:19.

The Plaintiff’s second claim alleges damage to reputation. But mere damage to reputation is not enough to provide a claim for relief—a Plaintiff must also plausibly show that such damage arises from false statements; truth is an absolute defense.

As such, the Plaintiff’s second claim for relief should be dismissed for lack of claim, as should associated prayers, as Plaintiff has not plausibly demonstrated why mere reputational damage—separate from defamation—would be cognizable under the law.

The first claim should also be dismissed, as there is plainly insufficient evidence to support the falsity of the statement in P-001’s claims—a necessary component of the claim—and Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that the statement was substantially false in light of the evidence-in-case.

 

[ameslap]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff wishes to enter the following piece of evidence into Discovery at this time

P-004 (See Attached) A PDF containing a collection of screenshots of Discord messages showing multiple instances of public perception of the Plaintiff following the posting of the announcement containing the alleged defamatory statements.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
IMPROPER EVIDENCE

As declared in [2025] FCR 49, evidence should be split up instead of collaged so they can be addressed individually throughout the case.

 

[Novakerbal]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Defense submits the following materials:

Spoiler: Exhibit D-007

Constitution Thread 'Town Constitution'

Sep 1, 2021

PREAMBLE
We the Citizens of the Town of Oakridge, in order to form a more perfect country, establish this Constitution to guarantee the preservation and protection of Justice, promote the general welfare of our Citizens, and secure the liberty of our participation in the governance of this Town. All the Citizens and the Government of the Town of Oakridge...

• Town of Oakridge
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Town of Oakridge

• 
• 
• 

What’s more, the Defense adds the following individuals to its witness list:

• Angryhamdog
• Sofia2750
• zLost

Motion

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

Your Honor:

The Town of Oakridge seek dismissal of the complaint under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), 5.5 (Lack of Claim), and 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). In support thereof, the Town respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff’s factual error is fatal to the case​

Under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), a case may be dismissed when “it is clear through the course of discovery that the plaintiff made a factual error in their complaint or amended complaint”.

The Plaintiff, in their first factual allegation, alleges that “JustaHumpling posted the statement in the official announcements channel for the Town of Oakridge, on behalf of the Town Council of Oakridge”. Upon review of the record as is stands in discovery, this was an error.

The Town Council never voted to put out a statement, and a review of the conversations of the Council show only two council members (one being JustaDumpling and the other being ElysiaCrynn) supported putting out some statement (see: Exhibit D-006). At the time that JustaDumpling (whose nickname of JustaHumpling is seen in screenshots) posted the message, no record of any vote nor majority support among the Town Council—much less any formal resolution—had been discussed in the Town Council chat (ibid). The Town’s constitution (included as Exhibit D-007, and available on the forums) requires majority support for the passage of Acts of Council (See: Oak. Const Article 1(1), “The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass Legislation on any topic through a majority vote of approval of its Members”.)

Thus, the statement, while its text purports to represent the Town Council as a whole, does not actually do so. Just as a single Representative or Senator making a post in #briefing and claiming to represent the will of the Congress does not make it so, the same goes for individual members of the Town Council who make announcements on their own initiative.

While this ties into standing below, this is enough to dismiss, as the factual error is clear and fatal to the Plaintiff’s case.

2. The Plaintiff lacks standing​

Under 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction), a case may be dismissed when “the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case”.

Standing itself is described in Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) as requiring all of the following to be present:



Firstly: In this case, the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a case against the Town of Oakridge because the first element fails—the Plaintiff has not shown that an injury was caused by the Town as the “clear second party”, and has not shown any application of law that affected them. The basis for standing (alleging that the Town itself actually issued a statement) is demonstrably false under review of the Town Record (see the first section in this post)—the Council never actually approved the message which the Plaintiff alleges cause reputational harm.

Separately, the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek certain prayers for relief. In particular, as the message was sent by JustaDumpling (not the Council), there is no lawful mechanism to compel the Town to retract and apologize—such relief under the No More Defamation Act may only be granted against parties who actually publish such statements.

3. Lack of Claim​

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal “may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge”.

The Plaintiff presents two separate claims for relief. The first claim for relief is an allegation of libel and slander, citing the No More Defamation Act. We will hold that aside for now.

The second Claim for relief, however, appears to merely a claim that reputation was damaged. Mere damage to reputation alone does not warrant separate relief in law, and no law is cited to support such a claim.

Even if we were to construct this as a poorly formatted addendum to the first claim for relief, the evidence-in-case cuts clearly against applying defamation in this way.

As the logs provided by the Plaintiff indicate, the Plaintiff:

1. Killed Sofia2750 at 15:59:11.
2. Shot at Angryhamdog and killed him at 15:59:13.
3. Shot at zLost at 15:59:14.
4. Shot at Angryhamdog and killed him at 16:00:38.
5. Shot at zLost at 16:00:39.
6. Shot at Angryhamdog and killed him at 16:00:57.
7. Shot at zLost an Sofia2750 at 16:02:14.
8. Killed Sofia2750 at 16:02:19.

The Plaintiff’s second claim alleges damage to reputation. But mere damage to reputation is not enough to provide a claim for relief—a Plaintiff must also plausibly show that such damage arises from false statements; truth is an absolute defense.

As such, the Plaintiff’s second claim for relief should be dismissed for lack of claim, as should associated prayers, as Plaintiff has not plausibly demonstrated why mere reputational damage—separate from defamation—would be cognizable under the law.

The first claim should also be dismissed, as there is plainly insufficient evidence to support the falsity of the statement in P-001’s claims—a necessary component of the claim—and Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that the statement was substantially false in light of the evidence-in-case.

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff will address each of the Defenses assertions for the dismissal of this case, and strongly objects to the dismissal of the case on these grounds.

1. Factual Error: While at first glance there appears to have been little discussion of the posting of the statement by the Oakridge Council, this does not excuse the public entity of Oakridge from the actions committed. Examining JustaDumpling’s message, we can see that it is titled as “Council Statement”, not councilor statement. Furthermore, unless JustaDumpling uses plural pronouns to refer to themself, the usage of words such as we strongly indicates a post on behalf of the entity. While the defense claims that JustaDumpling was essentially a rogue council member who posted this announcement without official approval, Oakridge has yet to take action to reverse this supposedly illegitimate council statement. Casting aspersion onto their characterization of it as some rogue unapproved statement. This was not a message posted in the #briefing channel, it was posted in the official announcements channel of Oakridge, and purports to speak on behalf of the town. The Defense claims that the Oakridge constitution requires a formal vote for an Act of Council, yet a statement is not an act. There is no constitutional provision for a censure or condemnation for a town authority, so there is no requirement that automatically disqualifies it. The failure of the Town of Oakridge to remove the offending "illegitimate" statement from the announcements channel speaks volumes, if the Town Entity has not taken action to remove it, then it is a tacit approval of the statement. And since the Oakridge Constitution does not specifically regulate this type of statement, there is no requirement for a vote that would preclude this from legally counting as a statement on behalf of the Public Entity of Oakridge.
2. Much of this is covered by Section 1, however the Plaintiff would like to remind the Honorable Magistrate that JustaDumpling was acting in their official capacity as a council member when posting this statement, not as a private citizen. The Defense cannot in totality decouple their actions from the Town Entity.
3. False Nature of Statements: The Plaintiff asserts that in fact, the statements posted by the Defendant are almost entirely false. Specifically we must consider the allegation of “kill all attending members” a “serious criminal offense”. At the time of the posting of the announcement, this is a provably false statement, the Plaintiff was only convicted summarily of 1 Murder Charge, and had received no other convictions. To call the Plaintiff a serious criminal was plainly false at the moment, no evidence had been published by the Council to support these claims, they had no access to logs or criminal records that would prove these claims to be true. The Town Council of Oakridge is not the arbiter of justice, they cannot solely declare when an individual has become a criminal. The published statement in essence, brands the Plaintiff as a definitive criminal, while the Plaintiff in actuality had not yet been convicted of the crimes alleged. To claim that any government entity can publicly claim an individual as a criminal before such a conviction has been actioned by the relevant authorities would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

This case is an example of a public entity using its powers to platform libel and slander, it should not be dismissed based on a purported technicality.