Lawsuit: In Session RylandW v. v__d [2025] FCR 37

[Dogeington]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RylandW (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

v.

v__d
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Between March 29th, 2025, and April 1st, 2025, v__d made conspiratorial and false claims about the conduct and character of RylandW. These claims asserted that RylandW had changed political parties and ideology to garner votes; that if elected RylandW would end free and fair elections in Aventura; that if elected RylandW would become Aventura’s permanent mayor; that RylandW was only seeking the position of mayor to accrue power and “career points”; that RylandW was the cause of hyperinflation; and that RylandW did not care about change. V__d further repeatedly used name-calling in his slander, showing particular affinity for the term “Crooked Ryland”. The timing and content of these claims, made solely during the election period, suggest a calculated effort to slander RylandW and interfere with his chances of re-election. Despite having won the previous election for Mayor of Aventura, and being projected to win by the Reveille Times in a pre-poll, RylandW lost the Mayoral race by a vote of 17 to 22, in part due to the slanderous comments made by the defendant. The defendant’s assertions are not only outrageous in their repetition and substance, but also fall far outside the bounds of constitutionally protected political speech. These statements are entirely false and have caused significant damage to RylandW's reputation, campaign, and ability to enjoy a fair and honest political environment in Redmont.

I. PARTIES
1. RylandW (Plaintiff)
2. v__d (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. RylandW was a candidate for re-election in the mayoral race of Aventura which took place between March 30, 2025, and April 1, 2025.

2. v__d made multiple false and defamatory statements about RylandW between March 19th, 2025, and April 1, 2025.

3. v__d claimed, without any factual basis that:
RylandW had changed political parties and ideology solely to gain votes;
RylandW became a “fake commie”, or communist;
RylandW, if elected, would end free and fair elections in Aventura;
RylandW, if elected, would become Aventura’s permanent mayor;
RylandW was solely motivated by a desire to gain political power and “career points”
RylandW was responsible for hyperinflation;
RylandW did not care about political change.

4. These statements were made in forums where other players and voters could read and engage with v__d’s comments.

5. The statements were only made during the election period, and represented a clear, calculated, and targeted effort to damage RylandW’s reputation and influence the outcome of the election.

6. Despite optimism at the time on the part of many of his supporters and neutral observers alike, RylandW lost the mayoral election by a vote of 17 to 22.

7. v__d’s slanderous statements materially contributed to RylandW’s loss.

8. v__d’s statements were false, malicious, and not protected under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, as they were false statements of fact intended to harm RylandW’s reputation.

9. As a result of v__d’s statements, RylandW suffered reputational, emotional, and political damages.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The statements made by the defendant constitute defamation:

• The No More Defamation Act §4.a defines defamation as: "a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander."
• The Act further defines slander as: "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."
• The statements made by the defendant clearly meet the requirements set forth by the No More Defamation act; They were false claims, were made through Discord or in-game messages, and served the malicious purpose of harming RylandW’s reputation and influencing the outcome of the election.
• The plaintiff seeks punitive damages as outlined in §5.a of the Legal Damages Act, to deter the defendant from engaging in such outrageous and slanderous conduct in the future.

2. The actions of the defendant also constitute humiliation:

• Humiliation as defined in §7.a(I) of the Legal Damages Act constitutes “Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.”
• Any reasonable person subjected to the public statements made by v__d would feel disgraced and humiliated, especially given the repeated and targeted name-calling and lying exhibited by v__d.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $20,000 in punitive damages for the slanderous statements of fact that were made against the Plaintiff.
2. $30,000 in consequential damages for the humiliation suffered by the Plaintiff due to the statements made by the Defendant.
3. $15,000 in legal fees,equal to 30% of the case value.

Witness List:
RylandW
HomelessBum
MissAndrist

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

RylandW Leads the Aventura Mayoral Pre-Poll

Spoiler: P-011

Election - Mayor Election - MARCH 2025 (SPECIAL)

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 13th day of April, 2025

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

i see no issue with what v__d said here

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

NEXT PLEASE!

 

[Kaiserin_]

i see no issue with what v__d said here

NEXT PLEASE!

Objection

Breach of Procedure
The Vice President is not party to this case, and this is the second time in the past week he has spoken without permission in a court thread, showing a behavioural pattern. We ask he be held in contempt of court and the statements be struck.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER OF THE COURT

Case [2025] FCR 37
Between:
RylandW
v.
v__d

CONTEMPT OF COURT

The witness called, @YeetBoy1872325 in contempt of court for speaking out of turn within a courtroom when not summonsed. The court leaves the punitive details of the charge to the Department of Homeland Security inline with their previous record. The statements are to be struck from the court records. Consequentially, the objection is granted despite not being necessary.

Spoiler: Attachment: Objection

Objection

Breach of Procedure
The Vice President is not party to this case, and this is the second time in the past week he has spoken without permission in a court thread, showing a behavioural pattern. We ask he be held in contempt of court and the statements be struck.

Dated this 18th of April, 2025.

 

[ColonelKai]

Writ of Summons

@v__d is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RylandW v. v__d [2025] FCR 37.

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

I am present on behalf of v__d.

Spoiler: Representation

 

[ColonelKai]

I apologise for the delay, I did not get a notification for this response. The defendant has 72 hours to produce a response to complaint. As a sidenote, please feel free to let me know if I miss or have not responded for a while.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding previous defamation rulings taken by the Courts.

 

[ColonelKai]

Please justify your request.

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding previous defamation rulings taken by the Courts.

 

[dearev]

Please justify your request.

Your honor id like to file this brief due to the complexity defamation cases have this case having in mind the no more defamation act.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I misread the deadline time. I thought it was tonight at midnight, not this morning at midnight.

If you find me in Contempt, I understand.

I do ask, however, for my client's fair trial, that I be given 12 hours from now to post an Answer.

Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Answer to Complaint

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

v__d
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that “RylandW was a candidate for re-election in the mayoral race of Aventura which took place between March 30, 2025, and April 1, 2025.”
2. DENY that “v__d made multiple false and defamatory statements about RylandW between March 19th, 2025, and April 1, 2025.”
3. AFFIRM that “v__d claimed …:
RylandW had changed political parties and ideology solely to gain votes;
RylandW became a “fake commie”, or communist;
RylandW, if elected, would end free and fair elections in Aventura;
RylandW, if elected, would become Aventura’s permanent mayor;
RylandW was solely motivated by a desire to gain political power and “career points”
RylandW was responsible for hyperinflation;
RylandW did not care about political change.” but DENY these were all necessarily false and without factual basis.
4. AFFIRM that any statements made by v__d were made in publicly available forums.
5. DENY that “The statements were only made during the election period, and represented a clear, calculated, and targeted effort to damage RylandW’s reputation and influence the outcome of the election.”
6. AFFIRM that “RylandW lost the mayoral election by a vote of 17 to 22” however NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY his supporters’ and neutral observers’ optimism.
7. DENY that “v__d’s slanderous statements materially contributed to RylandW’s loss,” NOTING that the statements shown in evidence are not slanderous, or if they are, are still protected speech.
8. DENY that “v__d’s statements were false, malicious, and not protected under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, as they were false statements of fact intended to harm RylandW’s reputation.”
9. DENY that “As a result of v__d’s statements, RylandW suffered reputational, emotional, and political damages.”

II. DEFENSES

ON POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
1. The Federal Court ruled in [2023] FCR 62 that Political Communication is only illegal defamation when statements “are specific, false claims about specific actions and results...”

An example of a claim which would not fall under this definition was given by the court: “Krix betrayed our country.”

ON THE CLAIMS MADE BY V__D
2. “[RylandW] has no ideology. He just picks whatever will get him more votes.” is not about specific actions and results, and is political by nature, and thus is considered protected political communication.

3. Calling RylandW “Crooked RylandW” is uncouth, but certainly not defamatory, as it is simply v__d’s opinion that RylandW is crooked. It also echoes the comments of a famous American politician, implying this is political communication as well.

4. “Ryland will probably get rid of elections” is not provably false, as the operative word “probably” implies it isn’t necessarily going to happen.

5. “Vote for Anime/Katto to stop Ryland from being Aventura’s permanent mayor” is not a statement of fact, rather it is a command. Furthermore, it lacks the claim of specific action which is necessary for political defamation.

6. “Hyperinflation is happening due to Ryland’s corruption” is not provably false.

7. “[RylandW] doesn’t care about change” is not provably false.

8. “[RylandW] is a fake commie” is almost certainly true, as we don’t see evidence that RylandW “supports class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs,” and it’s on the Plaintiff to prove he does and always has.

ON POLLING
9. A single pre-poll is not necessarily indicative of the voting bloc as a whole (there could have been polling biases, intentionally or unintentionally).

10. Even if a single pre-poll was indicative of the voting bloc as a whole, RNN’s advanced statistical analysis program (GitHub - Dartanboy/DCElectionPredictor: Scuffed election predictor for DemocracyCraft), which correctly predicted the order in which candidates would drop out and ultimately the results of the election of President 1950minecrafter (Exhibit D-001), would only give RylandW a 78% chance of winning based on that poll’s results (Exhibit D-002). While this is a significant advantage, it’s far from a guaranteed victory, and does not establish that v__d’s statements affected the election in any way.

ON DAMAGES
11. Given that none of these statements are defamatory by nature, Punitive Damages must not be awarded.

12. Humiliation is when an individual has been “disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish” per the Legal Damages Act. This did not happen, and as such the Consequential Damages for Humiliation must not be awarded.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: ”D-002”

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 26th day of April 2025.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER OF THE COURT

Case [2025] FCR 37
Between:
RylandW
v
v__d

Issuance of Warning
The court hereby issues a warning to @Dartanboy due to the latency, but will not hold in contempt, and their submission will be accepted. Another mistake, even if small, will result in contempt.

Regarding Amicus Brief
The Amicus Brief is denied. The justification by the movant was not clear enough and the movant has not demonstrated an exceptional knowledge in what they did not specify to be the issue at hand.

DISCOVERY
The court hereby enters the discovery period to last no more than 72 hours if not subject to extensions. The court reminds the defendant of rule 3.6 if it may become relevant due to an amendment by the plaintiff.

Filed this 28th of April, 2025

@Dartanboy @Dogeington @dearev

 

[juniperfig]

Following the resignation of the Honourable ColonelKai, I shall be taking over this case.

As discovery is now over, we shall move to opening statements. The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

I will be taking over this case following the (Frmr.) Honourable Judge juniperfig's untimely resignation. All deadlines will remain in effect.

 

[Dogeington]

Your honor,
Due to personal matters that I have had to invest my time in, I would like to respectfully request a 24 hour extention for my opening statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor, I will be away from Friday through Sunday. Could we perhaps have a recess until Monday if the Plaintiff agrees?

 

[Dogeington]

Your Honor, I would agree to that

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Granted. Please take this time to enjoy some rest.

 

[Dogeington]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Good evening, your honor, and may it please the court,
Defamation has always been difficult to prove. The introduction of the No More Defamation Act sought to ease the burden of evidence held by the plaintiff by removing the clause which required the plaintiff to prove the defendant's intent to defame. It also no longer necessitated that damages caused by defamation be proven in court, but rather stipulated that the charge of defamation adhere to the standards applied to all other civil cases by requiring proof of likely damages as outlined by the Legal Damages Act. In Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, which was held following the ratification of this act, the plaintiff lacked the necessary evidence to prove that the alleged defamatory statements were actually made against the plaintiff or that any reputational damage occurred. This is not a problem shared by this case. Due to the repeated nature of the defendant’s slander, the plaintiff in this case has multitudinous examples of false and defamatory statements directed at the plaintiff. As outlined in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 and bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63, there are four necessary conditions for a statement to be considered slanderous.

1. That the statement is in reference to the plaintiff;
2. That the statements are public;
3. That the statements are false;
4. That the statements harmed the plaintiffs reputation.

On the Subject and Forum of the Statements
In regards to the first two requirements, they are not at issue. It has not been disputed that the claims made by v__d were directed at RylandW, nor has it been disputed that the claims were made in public forums such as the DemocracyCraft in-game chat and the DemocracyCraft discord server.

On the Truth of the Statements
What is in dispute is the veracity of these statements; though, upon inspection, the statements are clearly false. First, there are the statements that are primarily emotive, like the repeated claims that political ideals held by the plaintiff are somehow disingenuous (P-001, P-003, P-004, P-005). Though beyond these there are specific claims made by the defendant, such as that the plaintiff would end elections in Aventura and become its “permanent mayor” (P-002, P-003), and claims that the plaintiff is the cause of hyperinflation (P-004), which are completely fictitious and lack any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The best defense against defamation is the truth. If the statements made by the defendant were true, then none of their statements would be defamatory. Although it isn’t evidence to the contrary, it is telling that the defense submitted no evidence to support any of v__d’s statements. Through the testimony of the named witnesses in this trial, and taking into account the lack of any evidence to the contrary, we will prove that, more likely than not, these statements are false.


On Reputational Damage
Put yourself in the shoes of a civilian logging into Democracy Craft to do their civic duty and vote. Imagine, if you will, seeing the messages sent by v__d claiming that the plaintiff was going to end elections in Aventura if elected and become its permanent mayor. Maybe you’ve bought something from v__d’s shop, or have seen his name in the discord, or maybe you don’t know anything about him and just see a concerned citizen talking about a mayoral candidate. Imagine the impact it would have on your vote, believing that a political candidate for your town will end elections if he comes to power. RylandW was a popular candidate in Aventura. He had already briefly been the mayor in the election preceding this one, and pre-polls done by the Reveille Times placed him in the lead, with 78% of readers intending to vote for him (P-010). RylandW was popular, active in campaigning, and had already won the previous election a month prior. This by no means guaranteed a victory, but if the plaintiff had taken a reputational hit, we could expect it to be reflected in this election. Considering that Ryland then lost this election by five votes (P-011), it is more likely than not that v__d’s statements had an impact on the plaintiff’s poor election performance.

On Witness Testimony
In the witness testimony for this case, we will prove that the plaintiff had no intention of ending elections in Aventura and becoming its permanent mayor. We will do this by asking the plaintiff himself, along with other members of his political organization who actively helped in his campaign and platform. Further, we will showcase that the defendant’s claim that RylandW was the cause of hyperinflation in Redmont had no merit. Then, with the testimony of those in chat when v__d’s statements were made, we will prove that these statements were made during an active time in the server, and were likely seen by many citizens and potential voters. Finally, the plaintiff will testify as to the emotional toll this whole ordeal took, and how it felt to be the subject of such a relentless smear campaign.

On Damages
As shown in the precedent set by Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 relying on the No More Defamation Act §5.1, "Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer", using the standards set in the Legal Damages Act. The Legal Damages Act §5.1.a defines punitive damages as “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”. We argue that the conduct of v__d is clearly outrageous, as his statements were not only slanderous, but were repeated both in-game and in the Democracy Craft discord over the course of multiple days. Such a pattern of behavior is clearly outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant, and these damages must be awarded in order to dissuade both the defendant and others from this type of conduct. Consequential damages are also deffined in the LDA §7.1.a as “An award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable”. Specifically, the plaintiff is seeking consequential damages related to humiliation, which further is defined in LDA §7.1.a.I as “Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish. Humiliation damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive.” Any reasonable person subject to this level of slander in an attempt to disgrace them would feel humiliated. Not only were v__d’s words slanderous, but they also gave rise to environments that empowered others to pile on, making other comments negative towards RylandW. This can be seen both in the DemocracyCraft server when the defendant’s statements were made, as well as in the DemocracyCraft Discord server (P-004-P-009).

On The Defense
The defense will claim that v__d’s statements were protected by the Redmont Condistution’s freedom of political communication clause, even alluding to the possibility of constitutionally protected slander. Though at risk of stating the obvious, there is no such thing as protected slander. Constitutional protections are not unlimited, and are subject to reasonable limits as prescribed by the law. Slander is, by definition, speech which is illegal, and cannot be protected under the freedom of political communication. Just because a statement is political does not mean that the speaker has a license to break the law. If that were the case, then it would be impossible to argue for any speech to be considered defamation, as in some way or another, all speech is political.

This case is not about silencing v__d. It's not about RylandW “getting revenge” after having lost an election. It's not about party politics. This is a case about justice, and about setting right the wrongs that were brought against the plaintiff.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The Defense now has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.