Lawsuit: Adjourned Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On January 11th, 2025, Vernicia posted an advertisement using in-game chat that offered her services in helping new players with housing, work, and other needs for free. RylandW responded to the offer by belittling Vernicia in public and accusing her of crimes that she did not commit. The defendant made entirely unfounded claims, accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her services and committing bribery. These actions not only constituted outrageous conduct that resulted in public humiliation for Vernicia, but also served a malicious purpose to decrease her good reputation in Redmont and discourage players from coming to her for help. The comments made by the defendant are in clear violation of the No More Defamation Act, and they must not go unpunished or uncompensated for.

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

II. FACTS

1. On the 11th of January, 2025, Vernicia posted an in-game advertisement encouraging new players to message her for help finding housing, work, and anything else they might need. (P-001)
2. Immediately following the advertisement, RylandW responded, "*in return, you join her political party", accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her offer. (P-001)
3. The plaintiff by no means requires that those new players who she assists join any particular political party.
4. RylandW further doubled down on and clarified his accusation of Vernicia's supposed bribery. In response to Vernicia saying that the defendant did not like her doing nice things, RylandW said "...bribery isnt a nice thingi", echoing a typo that Vernicia had made in order to further belittle her. (P-003)
5. Vernicia has not been found guilty of bribery, and the defendant provided no basis for the supposed bribery claim.
6. RylandW spared no expense in his belittling and accusatory statements, despite the fact that there were multiple people slandering Vernicia, worsening the humiliating situation for the plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The comments and accusations made by the defendant clearly constitute defamation, and more specifically, slander.

• The No More Defamation act 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 same act 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."
• In contrast to the Defamation Act 2020 (now rescinded), which stated that "damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law," no such provision exists in the presently effective NMDA. Thus, through meaningful variation, it can be deduced that tangible damages needn't be proven in order for an act to meet the definitions of defamation and slander under current law.
• The comments made by the defendant clearly meet all of the requirements to be considered slander: they were false, made through in-game messages, and served a self-evident and malicious purpose to harm Vernicia's reputation and discourage new players from using her services.
• The accusation of bribery, in particular, is very clearly both false and malicious. The Commercial Standards Act defines bribery as:
  "The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity."
  There is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff has committed any such crime, and she has not been convicted of, or even charged with, such actions in a court of law. Even if the court assumes that the defendant’s accusation of bribery was meant in a broader sense, referring to the previous assertion about attaching political strings to assistance, there remains absolutely no evidence that such strings exist.
• The plaintiff seeks punitive damages, as outlined in §5.a of the Legal Damages Act, to deter both the defendant and others from engaging in such outrageous and slanderous conduct in the future. By awarding such, the court would be setting a strong precedent against slander, ensuring a fair and just public discourse in Redmont free from the kind of disinformative and personal attacks that the defendant has made against the plaintiff.

2. The actions of the defendant also clearly constitute humiliation.

• Humiliation is outlined as a catalyst for consequential damages in §7.a.II of the Legal Damages Act, as follows:
  "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 Judge considers persuasive."
• It should be clear that, placed in the plaintiff's situation, any reasonable person would feel both disgraced and belittled. The defendant made a series of untrue accusations and personal attacks against the defendant in public for all to see. The plaintiff's actions using both in-game chat and the legal system to defend her honor and pursue remedies clearly showcase the humiliating nature of the baseless accusations and damning insults used by the defendant.
• In addition to the overall self-evidently belittling nature of the defendant’s speech, his mockery of the plaintiff’s minor spelling error in her message adds insult to injury, given that the plaintiff is not a native English speaker.
• The plaintiff is willing and able to testify to the humiliation that she was forced to endure due to the defendant's actions.

3. Finally, Dragon Law Firm requests 30% of the value of the case in legal fees, as permitted by §9.c of the Legal Damages Act, in order to fairly compensate for the intensive legal work conducted on behalf of the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in punitive damages for the slanderous accusations that were brought against the plaintiff.
2. $25,000 in consequential damages for humiliation due to the disgraceful, belittling, and false comments made by the defendant.
3. $10,500 in legal fees, equal to 30% of the value of the case.

EVIDENCE:

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 19th day of January, 2025

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@RylandW is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Vernicia v. RylandW.

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.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On January 11th, 2025, Vernicia posted an advertisement using in-game chat that offered her services in helping new players with housing, work, and other needs for free. RylandW responded to the offer by belittling Vernicia in public and accusing her of crimes that she did not commit. The defendant made entirely unfounded claims, accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her services and committing bribery. These actions not only constituted outrageous conduct that resulted in public humiliation for Vernicia, but also served a malicious purpose to decrease her good reputation in Redmont and discourage players from coming to her for help. The comments made by the defendant are in clear violation of the No More Defamation Act, and they must not go unpunished or uncompensated for.

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

II. FACTS

1. On the 11th of January, 2025, Vernicia posted an in-game advertisement encouraging new players to message her for help finding housing, work, and anything else they might need. (P-001)
2. Immediately following the advertisement, RylandW responded, "*in return, you join her political party", accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her offer. (P-001)
3. The plaintiff by no means requires that those new players who she assists join any particular political party.
4. RylandW further doubled down on and clarified his accusation of Vernicia's supposed bribery. In response to Vernicia saying that the defendant did not like her doing nice things, RylandW said "...bribery isnt a nice thingi", echoing a typo that Vernicia had made in order to further belittle her. (P-003)
5. Vernicia has not been found guilty of bribery, and the defendant provided no basis for the supposed bribery claim.
6. RylandW spared no expense in his belittling and accusatory statements, despite the fact that there were multiple people slandering Vernicia, worsening the humiliating situation for the plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The comments and accusations made by the defendant clearly constitute defamation, and more specifically, slander.

• The No More Defamation act 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 same act 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."
• In contrast to the Defamation Act 2020 (now rescinded), which stated that "damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law," no such provision exists in the presently effective NMDA. Thus, through meaningful variation, it can be deduced that tangible damages needn't be proven in order for an act to meet the definitions of defamation and slander under current law.
• The comments made by the defendant clearly meet all of the requirements to be considered slander: they were false, made through in-game messages, and served a self-evident and malicious purpose to harm Vernicia's reputation and discourage new players from using her services.
• The accusation of bribery, in particular, is very clearly both false and malicious. The Commercial Standards Act defines bribery as:
  "The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity."
  There is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff has committed any such crime, and she has not been convicted of, or even charged with, such actions in a court of law. Even if the court assumes that the defendant’s accusation of bribery was meant in a broader sense, referring to the previous assertion about attaching political strings to assistance, there remains absolutely no evidence that such strings exist.
• The plaintiff seeks punitive damages, as outlined in §5.a of the Legal Damages Act, to deter both the defendant and others from engaging in such outrageous and slanderous conduct in the future. By awarding such, the court would be setting a strong precedent against slander, ensuring a fair and just public discourse in Redmont free from the kind of disinformative and personal attacks that the defendant has made against the plaintiff.

2. The actions of the defendant also clearly constitute humiliation.

• Humiliation is outlined as a catalyst for consequential damages in §7.a.II of the Legal Damages Act, as follows:
  "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 Judge considers persuasive."
• It should be clear that, placed in the plaintiff's situation, any reasonable person would feel both disgraced and belittled. The defendant made a series of untrue accusations and personal attacks against the defendant in public for all to see. The plaintiff's actions using both in-game chat and the legal system to defend her honor and pursue remedies clearly showcase the humiliating nature of the baseless accusations and damning insults used by the defendant.
• In addition to the overall self-evidently belittling nature of the defendant’s speech, his mockery of the plaintiff’s minor spelling error in her message adds insult to injury, given that the plaintiff is not a native English speaker.
• The plaintiff is willing and able to testify to the humiliation that she was forced to endure due to the defendant's actions.

3. Finally, Dragon Law Firm requests 30% of the value of the case in legal fees, as permitted by §9.c of the Legal Damages Act, in order to fairly compensate for the intensive legal work conducted on behalf of the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in punitive damages for the slanderous accusations that were brought against the plaintiff.
2. $25,000 in consequential damages for humiliation due to the disgraceful, belittling, and false comments made by the defendant.
3. $10,500 in legal fees, equal to 30% of the value of the case.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

View attachment 51020

Spoiler: P-002

View attachment 51021

Spoiler: P-003

View attachment 51023

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 19th day of January, 2025

Please provide proof of representation.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Please provide proof of representation.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

View attachment 51042

Thank you.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defendant has failed to appear before the court over 72 hours after the posted writ of summons. The plaintiff thereby motions for a default judgement based on the established facts of the case.

 

[RylandW]

My apologies, Your Honor, there was a conflict of interest with my usual legal team. I kindly request a 24 hour extension. (I also apologize if this insurance not the correct format.)

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

My apologies, Your Honor, there was a conflict of interest with my usual legal team. I kindly request a 24 hour extension. (I also apologize if this insurance not the correct format.)

Given that you just barely missed the deadline, the customary summary judgement shall not take place. This court will wait for you to acquire legal representation.

This is your final warning to adhere to court deadlines. Answering a summons is a simple thing, simply declare presence. If you are unable to acquire legal counsel, you may request the court to provide you a public defender, or you may choose to represent yourself.

Carry on.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defendant has failed to appear before the court over 72 hours after the posted writ of summons. The plaintiff thereby motions for a default judgement based on the established facts of the case.

Denied.

The Defendant has provided a reasonable request to the court for an extension - and have subsequently declared their presence.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening. Justice Compass will be representing the Defendant.

Spoiler: Representation

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Good evening. Justice Compass will be representing the Defendant.

Spoiler: Representation

View attachment 51166

Thank you.

With the matter of representation settled, Discovery is set for a maximum of 72 hours.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The plaintiff would like to call MikeOxlonger1 and Vernicia as witnesses.

 

[Matthew100x]

As a heads-up for both parties, I have been requested by @Dr_Eksplosive to handle this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you.

With the matter of representation settled, Discovery is set for a maximum of 72 hours.

Discovery was set at 10:03 PM EST on January 23rd. 72 hours of Discovery has passed. As such, I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

Kindly ask for extensions if you need one.

 

[Dartanboy]

Discovery was set at 10:03 PM EST on January 23rd. 72 hours of Discovery has passed. As such, I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

Kindly ask for extensions if you need one.

Your honor,

I believe it is time for the Defense to file an Answer to Complaint, according to the new Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I believe it is time for the Defense to file an Answer to Complaint, according to the new Court Rules and Procedures.

You are right. The defendant has 72 hours to file their answer. Kindly inform me if you need an extension.

 

[Dartanboy]

You are right. The defendant has 72 hours to file their answer. Kindly inform me if you need an extension.

Your honor, I request an extra 4 hours, as I had a long day at work today and don't want to stay up late tonight/wake up extra early tomorrow in order to finish the filing.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted. Please let me know if you need any more additional time.

 

[Dartanboy]

Answer to Complaint

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

Vernicia
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRM that “on the 11th of January, 2025, Vernicia posted an in-game advertisement encouraging new players to message her for help finding housing, work, and anything else they might need.”
2. AFFIRM that “following the advertisement, RylandW said, "*in return, you join her political party",” however DO NOT AFFIRM NOR DENY this was “accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her offer.”
3. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that “the plaintiff by no means requires that those new players who she assists join any particular political party.”
4. DENY that “RylandW doubled down on and clarified his accusation of Vernicia's supposed bribery.” NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that “in response to Vernicia saying that the defendant did not like her doing nice things, RylandW said "...bribery isnt a nice thingi", echoing a typo that Vernicia had made in order to further belittle her.”
5. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that “Vernicia has not been found guilty of bribery, and the defendant provided no basis for the supposed bribery claim.”
6. DENY that “RylandW spared no expense in his belittling and accusatory statements, despite the fact that there were multiple people slandering Vernicia, worsening the humiliating situation for the plaintiff.”

II. DEFENSES
1. Political speech is protected by the Constitution. Claiming that a certain organization has political ties, no matter how major those ties may be (ranging from supporting to requiring customers to join), speaking of them, regardless of their truth value, is protected political speech.
2. There is insufficient evidence to conclude RylandW was referring to Vernicia's advertisements or even talking to Vernicia at all. As far as the evidence shows, it's entirely possible someone was talking with RylandW in local chat but RylandW forgot to switch from /g to /l.
3. Damages for Defamation do need to be proven. The clause stating this was removed because it is redundant – of course no damages are ever presumed in a court of law. The Legal Damages Act requires evidence for most types of damages.
4. RylandW never accused anyone of bribery, only claiming that bribery is not a nice thing.
5. There is insufficient evidence that Vernicia was disgraced.
6. There is insufficient evidence that Vernicia was belittled.
7. There is insufficient evidence that RylandW making the typo “thingi” was an intentional mockery, and not simply another typo.

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 30th day of January, 2025

(Edited to fix formatting)

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 72 hours. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

 

[Kaiserin_]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 72 hours. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

Your honor, I believe that it is now time for the trial to commence and for the plaintiff to give an opening statement, in accordance with the new court rules.

 

[Matthew100x]

My apologies,

I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

 

[Kaiserin_]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, your honor, and may it please the court,
The question before you today is a simple one: should defamation be punished, and should victims of defamation be compensated through the legal system? Throughout the course of this trial, the defense will attempt to subvert your attention and use a number of flimsy arguments, as they already have, to convince you that the defendant's actions were somehow justified, or that they do not constitute defamation. The truth is this - if ever there was an open-and-shut case of defamation, it would be this one.

The Facts
On that fateful day of January 11th, the defendant made a number of severe and egregiously untrue accusations against the plaintiff in a public setting without any kind of proof whatsoever; even now, the defense has provided no evidence to suggest that these statements had any modicum of truth to them. These accusations included a claim that my client required those she gave in-game assistance to to join her political party, and an implied claim that my client had committed bribery. Not only was the content of these accusations slanderous, but the tone in which they were delivered was severely harmful not only to my client's reputation, but also to her emotional state.

The Definitions and Meaningful Variation
The currently active legislation that governs defamation law is the No More Defamation Act, or NMDA, which defines defamation as follows:

"a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander,"

and slander as follows:

"A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."

Notably, these definitions lack a provision which was present in previous legislation. The now-replaced Defamation Act 2020 stated:

"damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law,"

a fact which is not present in the current law. Instead, the NMDA states the following:

"Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer."

What does this mean for the court? The Congress of Redmont, through meaningful variation across legislation, has removed the necessity to prove damages out of the definition for defamation, bringing defamation law in line with all other legislation governing civil offenses. It is clear for the court to see that the defendant's actions do constitute defamation and slander, and were against the law. They check all of the boxes: the statements were false, they were made through in-game messages, and they served a clear and self-evident purpose to damage my client's reputation - a fact that will be expanded upon through witness testimony as the trial proceeds. The legislation and the facts are abundantly clear: RylandW committed slander. Thus, it is up to the court to decide how, and to what extent, the defendant's actions should be punished by considering the merit of the damage claims brought by the plaintiff.

On The Defense
The defense, in their answer to complaint, has provided for the court a number of bad-faith arguments and what-if lines of thinking that will attempt to convince you that the defendant's actions were somehow either justified, or were not directed at the plaintiff at all. If there is any justice in the world, the court will not be fooled. Let us go through them one by one.
1. The defense claims that the defendant's statements were protected political speech. While it is true that political speech is protected under Redmont law, the slander brought against my client goes beyond normal political speech, and ventures well into the territory of illegal and immoral defamation. The Congress of Redmont has made it abundantly clear, by passing legislation that restricts speech without giving any special exemptions to political communication, that the the VI right in the Constitution of Redmont is not absolute. To assume otherwise, as the defense has, would be to assume that defamation in all forms is somehow permissible so long as it is related to a political matter. Considering that nearly all of public discourse in Redmont is political, this line of reasoning goes against not only all conceivable notions of common sense, but also both the letter and spirit of the No More Defamation Act.
2. It should be clear to the court that this is an argument made in bad faith. There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant's statements were intended to be made in private, and it is abundantly clear through the evidence provided by the plaintiff that the defendant was participating in public dialogue while making his undue criticisms of the plaintiff.
3. The defense argues that damages for defense must be proven, regardless of the details of the established legislation. The defense is only partially correct. As previously established, the concept of meaningful variation can be used to deduce that tangible proof of damages needn't be given simply for an act to be considered defamation. Instead, the court shall decide based on the plaintiff's prayers for relief, in conjunction with the Legal Damages Act, how to award damages. The defense refers to this legislation in their answer to complaint, but seems to have neglected to provide specifics.
The plaintiff seeks punitive and consequential damages. LDA §5.2.a states of punitive damages:

"(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous,"

while LDA §5.3.b states:

"(a) In assessing a punitive damage award, the magistrate/judge/justice can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant."

The court shall have to decide, after assessing the evidence provided and the testimony of the witnesses, whether the defendant's conduct was outrageous. It should be abundantly clear to the court from the outset that publicly lying about someone else's actions in an attempt to worsen their public image in conjunction with another person doing the exact same thing (as seen in the evidence) constitutes outrageous conduct. This fact will only become more evident as the trial progresses.
LDA §7.1.a.II defines humiliation as a type of consequential damages:

Humiliation - 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 Judge considers persuasive.

LDA §7.3.a further states:

In assessing a consequential damage award, the magistrate/judge/justice must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof.

The court should consider through a reasonable person test whether any reasonable person put in my client's situation would feel disgraced or belittled. The answer should be obvious: my client was defamed in a public forum for things that she did not do - anyone would feel disgraced in the face of such slander. Furthermore, the plaintiff's testimony shall expand on the humiliation that she was forced to endure. This should suffice to address the concerns in defenses 5 and 6 that the defendant provided.
4. The statement "bribery isn't a nice thing" in response to my client's statement that the defendant "dislikes [her] doing nice things" contains a clear and self-evident implied accusation of bribery. The plaintiff stated that she does nice things for others, and the defendant retorted by saying that the plaintiff had committed bribery. There is no room for interpretation here.
7. While the specifics of the defendant's echoing of the plaintiff's typo are not a major crux of this case, and the verdict does not hinge on this fact by any means, it should be noted that it is disingenuous to assume that, out of all other possibilities, the defendant just so happened to make the exact same mistake in the exact same way that my client had. No, it is clear that this was an intentional mockery, and given the already hostile tone of the defendant's previous messages, it is not unreasonable to assume as much without any way of receiving hard confirmation.

The plaintiff encourages the court to keep these factors in mind as this trial progresses, and to consider carefully the context of the incident, the facts of the governing statute, and the testimony of the witnesses that will be called forth in assessing how they intend to rule. The defense thanks the court for its time and thoughtful consideration thus far.

 

[Matthew100x]

My apologies,

I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

The defendant should note that the time for posting their opening statement has already begun.

 

[Dartanboy]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Introduction
The Plaintiff would have you believe the question in this case “is a simple one” but that is seldom the case, and today this does not change. The Plaintiff will boldly claim this is an “open-and-shut case of defamation” and claim that the Defense will use “flimsy arguments … to convince you the defendant’s actions were somehow justified” or “do not constitute defamation.”

Your honor, based on the principles of common law, as well as the statutory law of the Judicial Standards Act (Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), as well as the precedent of several cases before this, such as [2022] FCR 72 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72), it is not the Defendant’s job to prove his innocence, but the Plaintiff’s job to prove the Defendant’s guilt.

The Plaintiff has ignored this immense mountain of law that urges the court to consider all possibilities, not simply the one that the Plaintiff deems most beneficial for themself.

On Political Communication
On January 11, RylandW issued the following political communication: “*in return, you join her political party.” While the evidence is not clear that this was in regards to Vernicia’s advertisement (noting the evidence shows none of the chat before the advertisement whatsoever), even if it was directed towards Vernicia, it is protected political communication.

Similar issues have been brought to the court before, such as claiming a police officer is a traitor and terrorist, yet the court ruled, “Thus, although the Defendant may have made statements that are slanderously false, it is the Court’s opinion that the actions in this case are protected by the Freedom of Political Communication given to all citizens by the Constitution.” (Lawsuit: Adjourned - pepper5980 v. FTGWop [2023] DCR 4).

On The Alleged Allegation of Bribery
There is absolutely no evidence backing up the claim that my client accused Vernicia of bribery. In fact, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that when RylandW claimed “bribery isn’t a nice thing” that he was even talking to Vernicia. Nonetheless, even if it was directed towards Vernicia, this is not an allegation. Perhaps RylandW believed Vernicia was considering bribing someone, and RylandW – looking out for a fellow Redmontian – warned her that this was not a nice thing. Perhaps RylandW was just saying out loud that bribery is not a nice thing. It would be one thing if he said, “Vernicia, you committed bribery. Stop it,” but that’s not what he said, although the Plaintiff would like to equate a simple statement of fact (“bribery is not a nice thing”) to that statement.

On The Crime of Bribery
The Defense does not have Vernicia’s criminal record, nor are we entitled to it. This is why we refused to affirm the claim that “Vernicia has not been found guilty of bribery.”

Notably, the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of this fact, so it must be assumed false.

That said, it does not really matter if the Plaintiff has committed Bribery or not, since the Defendant did not accuse her of it.

On Belittling and Humiliation
The Federal Court has already ruled that “to be ‘disgraced’ you must lose respect, honor, and/or esteem as a result. To be ‘belittled’ you must have suffered from the intentional and successful actions of another to make you feel worthless and/or disrespected.” (Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62)

Not only has the Plaintiff failed to prove the statements in question were even defamatory in nature, they fell extremely short of proving that Vernicia lost “respect, honor, and/or esteem.”

Furthermore, they failed to show Vernicia “suffered from the intentional and successful actions of another to make [her] feel worthless and/or disrespected.”

Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to prove Vernicia was disgraced or belittled.

On Consequential Damages
In [2023] FCR 62 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62), the Federal Court ruled
“The Freedom of Political Communication and the Freedom of the Press and Media are both foundational freedoms to our democracy. Any infringement of these rights must be carefully examined, and it must be determined whether they are “reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”

The Federal Court understands that all of the statements are inherently political communication and were made in the press/media, and that at least the statement about Krix was defamatory (libel) in nature, however it must now be decided whether this is protected by the Constitution or not.

In this case, we see specific claims the Defendant made about Krix, that are nearly proven false, and certainly rise to the level of proof required to meet the standard of a balance of probabilities. Because these are specific, false claims about specific actions and results, the court believes that it is not protected by these Constitutional rights. A more vague claim such as “Krix betrayed our country” may have been protected as it does not have any definitively specific claims, but the Freedom of Political Communication and the Freedom of Press and Media cannot protect you when making direct, specific, defamatory statements.”

In accordance with this precedent and the precedent of [2023] DCR 4 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - pepper5980 v. FTGWop [2023] DCR 4), it is clear that although Political Communication is not unlimited, it is extraordinarily broad, and shall be seriously considered when weighed against the astounding lack of damage caused by the alleged defamation in this case.

On Proving Damages
The Judicial Standards Act requires that the burden of proof in Civil Cases is a Balance of Probabilities. Thus, damages must still be proven, and I am appalled that the Plaintiff’s counsel would suggest that Congress has “removed the necessity to prove damages.”

Furthermore, as the Plaintiff has already quoted, the No More Defamation Act states, “Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer” (emphasis added).

The very law the Plaintiff is attempting to use to subvert the requirement of proving damages still says damages must be proven.

On The Nature of Chatting in Redmont
As mentioned in the Answer to Complaint, there is insufficient evidence to conclude RylandW was referring to Vernicia's advertisements or even talking to Vernicia at all. As far as the evidence shows, it's entirely possible someone was talking with RylandW in local chat but RylandW forgot to switch from /g to /l.

The Plaintiff responded to this, claiming, “It should be clear to the court that this is an argument made in bad faith. There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant's statements were intended to be made in private, and it is abundantly clear through the evidence provided by the plaintiff that the defendant was participating in public dialogue while making his undue criticisms of the plaintiff.”

Your honor, I urge you to recall that the burden of proof falls on the Plaintiff. While they claim “There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant’s statements were made intended to be made in private,” it is not the Defense’s job to provide such evidence. The Plaintiff must prove that it was intended to be public discourse.

We’ve all seen people say something in public that they meant to say in private, we’ve received DMs that were meant for someone else. It is not a stretch to believe that this happened in this case.

In Summary
Political Communication is an extremely broad right, that has held up in even the most extreme cases, with the courts making verdicts stating that a certain statement rises to the level of defamation, even claiming it to appear as “clear-cut slander case” only for the Constitutional Right to Political Communication to swoop in and clear the Defendant of legal wrongdoing.

Although this case is nowhere near as egregious as claiming someone to be a terrorist, it’s worth mentioning that even that statement was protected.

It is not on the Defendant to prove these statements were not intended for Vernicia or in response to her advertisement – it is on the Plaintiff to prove that they were.

Damages for Defamation still need to be proven – none are to be assumed.

RylandW did not accuse Vernicia of bribery.

Given the definition of “disgraced” and “belittled”, there is no evidence that Vernicia was disgraced or belittled.

The Defense urges to court to uphold the common-law principle of Innocence Until Proven Guilty, to uphold the statutory law of Civil Cases Requiring Balance of Probabilities, to uphold the case law of the Broad Right to Political Communication, to uphold the No More Defamation Act’s Requirement to Prove Damages, and to carefully consider the vast possibilities of circumstances that may have led to the moments of this case.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Pandaz8]

Your honour, I wish to interject my self into this case. I have preduent information that the courts must be made aware of.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honour, I wish to interject my self into this case. I have preduent information that the courts must be made aware of.

Then please don't. I am warning you not to do this again in my chambers otherwise you will be charged with Contempt of Court.

 

[Pandaz8]

Your honour, where may I respectfully be heard. I have information of the up-most importance. Where can I share this to follow your procedures. This is case defining information that you must be made aware of.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honour, where may I respectfully be heard. I have information of the up-most importance. Where can I share this to follow your procedures. This is case defining information that you must be made aware of.

You are hereby charged with contempt of court. I am ordering the DHS to fine you $500 dollars.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honour, I wish to interject my self into this case. I have preduent information that the courts must be made aware of.

Your honour, where may I respectfully be heard. I have information of the up-most importance. Where can I share this to follow your procedures. This is case defining information that you must be made aware of.

Motion

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

These comments were disruptive and not in line with court procedure. We ask they be struck.

 

[Matthew100x]

Writ of Summons:

@MikeOxlonger1 and @Vernicia are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 as witnesses.

Please mark yourselves as present within the next 72 hours. Witnesses can hire counsel to assist you with questions if they wish.
​

 

[kartar1]

I am present

 

[Vernicia]

Present, your Honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Since these are the plaintiff's witnesses, the plaintiff can submit witness questions first. The plaintiff has 24 hours to submit their questions. Afterwards, the questions are submitted, the witnesses must answer. Then the defendant will be able to cross-examine the witnesses.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff requests a 24 hour extension your honor. It’s the middle of the week.

 

[Matthew100x]

The plaintiff requests a 24 hour extension your honor. It’s the middle of the week.

Granted

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Present, your Honor.

1. Why did you help new players?
2. Do you ever give or receive bribes?
3. When these accusations came out, how did it make you feel?
4. When these accusations came out, how was your reputation impacted?
5. When these accusations came out, did you see people in the chat agreeing / adding on to Ryland’s claims?


The plaintiff has no questions for the other witness as he is deported. The plaintiff may have follow up questions to the answers provided.

 

[Dartanboy]

3. When these accusations came out, how did it make you feel?

 OBJECTION
Ambiguous

The question does not specify what accusations are in question.

(Applies to Questsion 3, 4, and 5)

 

[Matthew100x]

 OBJECTION
Ambiguous

The question does not specify what accusations are in question.

(Applies to Questsion 3, 4, and 5)

Granted. Please specify to the witness what accusations are being referred here.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

3. When the accusations of bribery by RylandW came out, how did it make you feel?
4. When these accusations came out, how was your reputation impacted?
5. When these accusations came out, did you see people in the chat agreeing / adding on to Ryland’s claims?

 

[Matthew100x]

3. When the accusations of bribery by RylandW came out, how did it make you feel?
4. When these accusations came out, how was your reputation impacted?
5. When these accusations came out, did you see people in the chat agreeing / adding on to Ryland’s claims?

Just confirming that questions 4 and 5's "accusations" refer to question 3's accusation of bribery?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Just confirming that questions 4 and 5's "accusations" refer to question 3's accusation of bribery?

That is correct your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

The witness may answer the question within the next 24 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

When the accusations of bribery by RylandW came out, how did it make you feel?

 OBJECTION
ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

There is insufficient evidence that RylandW made "accusations of bribery."

He only said that "bribery is not a nice thing."

 

[Alexander P. Love]

 OBJECTION
ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

There is insufficient evidence that RylandW made "accusations of bribery."

He only said that "bribery is not a nice thing."

The plaintiff argues there was an insinuation of bribery that any reasonable person can see. The plaintiff will testify she felt accused regardless, and this would be up for examination later. The defense is asking the Court to make a value judgment on a key claim in the case right now.

 

[Matthew100x]

 OBJECTION
ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

There is insufficient evidence that RylandW made "accusations of bribery."

He only said that "bribery is not a nice thing."

Denied.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

As I have now been confirmed as Judge (or am about to be, as there are 5 "ayes" for my nomination in the Senate), I will no longer be able to represent the Defendant.

I have informed him of this, and ask he be given sufficient time to find new counsel.

 

[Vernicia]

1. Why did you help new players?
2. Do you ever give or receive bribes?
3. When these accusations came out, how did it make you feel?
4. When these accusations came out, how was your reputation impacted?
5. When these accusations came out, did you see people in the chat agreeing / adding on to Ryland’s claims?


The plaintiff has no questions for the other witness as he is deported. The plaintiff may have follow up questions to the answers provided.

1) - Me want see lil russia be huge hotspot for players to have people met me while i do stuff around , i enjoy new player company and teaching them

2) - Nope

3) - Quite hurted me, also was quite humiliating experience due to others joining, I try help new player and get attacks for it, very belittling to make fun of my english aswell

4) - Noone answered and people were from that time whole day ignoring it while it impacted my political reputation as people most likely see me as another corupt politician, now people call me even fasist and reacting quite badly to my campaign

5) - There was few

 

[Matthew100x]

Given that there has been no follow-up questions. I am moving to allow the defendant to cross-examine the witness. Can the defendant please confirm that they have representation within the next 48 hours? If you do not get representation, I will be getting you a public defender.

I am justifying the use of the public defender in this situation because it is at the discretion of the presiding Judicial Officer (see Information - Public Defence Policy) and because we're in the middle of trial.

 

[Matthew100x]

Since the defendant @RylandW did not get or indicate that he did get representation, I will be requesting a public defender.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,
I am present as the PD.

 

[Matthew100x]

Please cross-examine the witness. You'll have 24 hours to ask questions.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Please cross-examine the witness. You'll have 24 hours to ask questions.

Your Honor,

MikeOxlonger1 has been deported therefore his Testimonys if any must be nullified.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

MikeOxlonger1 has been deported therefore his Testimonys if any must be nullified.

His testimony was given when he was not deported.

Edit: whoops

 

[juniperfig]

His testimony was given when he was not deported.

Correction. Mikeoxlonger1 gave no testimony in this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Duly noted from all. @Babysoga4real please cross-examine Vern within the next 18 hours.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Duly noted from all. @Babysoga4real please cross-examine Vern within the next 18 hours.

Your Honor,
We the Defence wish to ask the Witness @Vernicia questions may I proceed?

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor,
We the Defence wish to ask the Witness @Vernicia questions may I proceed?

Yes, you have been able to do so.

 

[Babysoga4real]

@Vernicia questions:

1. What damage did the alleged Action by Ryland W cause for you?
2. Do you believe anyone believed what RylandW allegedly said?
3. Do you believe stating that a crime is a bad thing is wrong?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

2. Do you believe anyone believed what RylandW allegedly said?
3. Do you believe stating that a crime is a bad thing is wrong?

Objection

Speculation, Calls for Conclusion

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection

Speculation, Calls for Conclusion

I am not seeing speculation for either question because the question is asking the witness to talk about their belief of the situation.

That said, Question 3 is struck because it calls for a conclusion.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

the question is asking the witness to talk about their belief of the situation.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Respectfully, your honor, this is the very definition of speculation. Vernicia cannot testify toward what other people believed about the situation.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

Speculation, Calls for Conclusion

Your Honor,

Nothing here calls for conclusion or is objectable in any other Case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

Nothing here calls for conclusion or is objectable in any other Case.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Response to Objection

Your Honor,
I do recall that the Opposing side has 24hours to respond to Motions and Objections.

 

[Babysoga4real]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Respectfully, your honor, this is the very definition of speculation. Vernicia cannot testify toward what other people believed about the situation.

Response to Objection

The Defence may very well ask the Defendant what the Plaintiff was feeling and; or believing. She is asked if she believes that Ryland W alleged Actions where Believed by someone.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Response to Motion

The Defence may very well ask the Defendant what the Plaintiff was feeling and; or believing. She is asked if she believes that Ryland W alleged Actions where Believed by someone.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Counsel was not prompted to respond and motions are not able to be automatically responded to.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Counsel was not prompted to respond and motions are not able to be automatically responded to.

Response to Objection
Your Honor,
Opposing Cousel,

It is stated that in the Introductions to the Courts : "INTRODUCTION
These are the established objections of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that are established through court policy, unless otherwise codified within law. It is important that lawyers and any player who is objecting to a remark made by the opposing party or to a question posed to a witness, use this guide.

Objections are on a per matter issue. One Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter. Any new objections that are raised must be its own individual matter. Such as perjury in an objection or counter objection.

Any objection regarding witness testimony may have new evidence provided with the objection so long as it is relevant to refuting the testimony. The evidence being permitted is at discretion of the Presiding Officer."

This clearly shows that the Opposing Cousel is making false Statements.

 

[Matthew100x]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Respectfully, your honor, this is the very definition of speculation. Vernicia cannot testify toward what other people believed about the situation.

Denied on the grounds that Vernicia's belief of the situation is their direct lived experience of the situation. This testimony from the witness may help the court understand the claims better.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Overruled, the defendant is allowed to make a counter to the objection.

Response to Objection

Your Honor,
I do recall that the Opposing side has 24hours to respond to Motions and Objections.

Please do not speak out of turn. Also please cite sources to the court.

Response to Objection

The Defence may very well ask the Defendant what the Plaintiff was feeling and; or believing. She is asked if she believes that Ryland W alleged Actions where Believed by someone.

Please do not speak out of turn. You had already made an argument on the objection.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Counsel was not prompted to respond and motions are not able to be automatically responded to.

Granted.

Response to Objection
Your Honor,
Opposing Cousel,

It is stated that in the Introductions to the Courts : "INTRODUCTION
These are the established objections of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that are established through court policy, unless otherwise codified within law. It is important that lawyers and any player who is objecting to a remark made by the opposing party or to a question posed to a witness, use this guide.

Objections are on a per matter issue. One Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter. Any new objections that are raised must be its own individual matter. Such as perjury in an objection or counter objection.

Any objection regarding witness testimony may have new evidence provided with the objection so long as it is relevant to refuting the testimony. The evidence being permitted is at discretion of the Presiding Officer."

This clearly shows that the Opposing Cousel is making false Statements.

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. There is a reason why we only do one objection per issue, to prevent a chain of objections for the court to try and resolve.

---

For both parties, can we please keep objections from turning into a bigger issue. Kindly remember that it is one objection per matter (as the public defender cited above). Can @Vernicia please answer the questions (Q1 and Q2) for the court so that we can proceed with this trial?

 

[Vernicia]

1 - I believe Ryland intentionally caused damage to my reputation. As an important and experienced politician, his actions were deliberately aimed at defaming me by falsely accusing me of bribing people. In addition that day noone messaged me for help i was offering.

2 - Yes

 

[Matthew100x]

We will now be moving to closing statements. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement. When the plaintiff posts their closing statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Babysoga4real]

We will now be moving to closing statements. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement. When the plaintiff posts their closing statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement.

Your Honor,
I am no longer a PD on this.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

I have been assigned to this case as the new public defender.

I ask for a 48 hour extension to review this case and confer with the defendant.

I also ask that the defense may be allowed to cross examine the witness during this time, as closing statement have not begun yet.

Thank you.

Proof of representation:

Spoiler

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I have been assigned to this case as the new public defender.

I ask for a 48 hour extension to review this case and confer with the defendant.

I also ask that the defense may be allowed to cross examine the witness during this time, as closing statement have not begun yet.

Thank you.

Proof of representation:

Spoiler

View attachment 51942

Unfortunately, witness statements have closed at this time. Questions were asked and answered. I do not believe it would be fair to the plaintiff (who is also the witness) to be cross-examined again, even though the defendant's PD was fired during trial. While it is understandably unfair to the defendant, they are choosing to use the public defender system. I don't see this as any different than having a change of attorney mid-trial.

I will be denying the defendant's request for a 48 hour extension since it is currently the plaintiff's time to post closing statement. That said, I will be happy to grant an extension during the defendant's closing statement if asked at that time.

 

[juniperfig]

Your honour,

I've been very busy this week with schoolwork. I respectfully request a 12 hour extension for my closing statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted.

 

[juniperfig]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

May it please the court,

Today, we stand at a critical moment in the interpretation and enforcement of Redmont’s defamation laws. This is the first time a defamation case has been tried under the No More Defamation Act, a law that was intentionally revised to ensure that victims of defamation are properly protected and that falsehoods spread with malicious intent do not go unchecked. The Defendant and their counsel would have you believe that this case is not about defamation at all, but about political speech and unintended consequences. However, the facts and the law speak clearly—this case is about the Defendant making knowingly false and harmful accusations against my client, and now, they must be held accountable.

The law is clear. Defamation is defined as “a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation.” The Defendant’s statements meet every single requirement: they were false, they were communicated in-game, and they directly harmed my client’s reputation by discouraging others from seeking her assistance and by fostering public doubt about her character. The Defendant specifically claimed that my client was using her generosity to bribe new players into joining her political party—an accusation that is entirely baseless and damaging to her credibility.

Unlike the now-rescinded Defamation Act of 2020, which required plaintiffs to prove specific damages, the No More Defamation Act does not impose such a requirement. Instead, it allows the court to determine appropriate damages if defamation is proven. This meaningful variation in legislation should not be ignored. The court must recognize that this law was updated to correct previous oversights and to ensure that the burden of proof does not fall unjustly on those who have already suffered from false statements.

The Defence argues that political speech is a shield against defamation, but the Constitution of Redmont does not grant an unlimited right to defame others. The law does not carve out an exception for political discourse when that discourse is built on lies designed to harm. Political speech may be protected, but slander is not. The precedent that the Defence relies on—where speech was ruled protected despite defamatory implications—does not apply in a case where the statements were explicitly false, made with intent to harm, and had a tangible impact on my client’s ability to assist new players.

The Plaintiff has demonstrated that these statements were not only false but were also intentionally harmful. As an experienced politician, the Defendant knew the weight of their words. They knew that accusing someone of bribery—especially someone who holds a public role—would tarnish her reputation and create doubt among those who would otherwise seek her assistance. The court has heard testimony that, on the day these statements were made, no new players reached out to my client for help. That is real, demonstrable harm.

The Defence claims that no damage was done, that no one believed these statements, and that my client has not suffered. But my client has testified that she did, in fact, suffer. The reasonable person test clearly applies here—any reasonable person in her position would feel humiliated by false public accusations of bribery.

Your Honour, this is not just about one statement or one individual. This case sets a precedent for how the No More Defamation Act will be applied in Redmont moving forward. It is an opportunity for the court to affirm that lies, when spoken with malice and intended to harm, will not be tolerated.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the court rule in favor of the Plaintiff, award appropriate damages, and ensure that justice is served.

Thank you.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

I would like to request for a 72 hour extension at this time.
The public defenders office has been quite a bit busy as of recent.
It would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor,

I would like to request for a 72 hour extension at this time.
The public defenders office has been quite a bit busy as of recent.
It would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Respectfully, your honor, 72 hours is absurd and denies my client the right to a speedy trial. The public defender's office has workers that aren't being utilized, such as KingBob and the director himself, Anaphase_Andy. The PD's office is failing to allocate defenders appropriately and that should not hamper my client's right to get this matter attended to quickly.

 

[Matthew100x]

Respectfully, your honor, 72 hours is absurd and denies my client the right to a speedy trial. The public defender's office has workers that aren't being utilized, such as KingBob and the director himself, Anaphase_Andy. The PD's office is failing to allocate defenders appropriately and that should not hamper my client's right to get this matter attended to quickly.

If you needed 72 hours for something, I would understand. As a presiding judge, it is within my purview to grant or deny extensions as needed. I have already provided your firm 36 hours of extensions (24 hours - Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 and 12 hours Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5). I do not see the harm in granting this extension so that the Public Defender could work for the case. PDs are assigned to cases and do not work like a regular law firms. For the fairness of the defendant, I will be granting this extension request.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

Introduction
This is a Defamation case, but where’s the slander?
In our Opening Statement (Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5) we discuss how the plaintiff’s job is to prove the defendant's guilt, and I don’t believe they’ve done as such.

There are two comments the plaintiff is focused on by the defendant, but let’s break those comments down.



Comment One
P-001 Includes one comment of note from the defendant -- “*in return, you join her political party”

While the defence maintains that the defendant’s comments could’ve been in relation to someone else as mentioned in our Opening Statement, we’d like to offer that even if these comments WERE in relation to the plaintiff, this would not necessarily be a condemnation of them or their party.

The plaintiff’s good deeds offered in the ad are just that, a good deed. While the defendant was a part of another party at the time, this comment could still be read as beneficial regardless. From P-001 again the plaintiff’s ad -- “You are new player needing help with housing, work or anything else ? Will help you for free”

An alternative reading of the defendants comment with a phrase added to provide beneficial context for how the phrase could be interpreted. -- “*In return, you choose to join her political party”
The reader experiences the text, so the reader must insert themselves into the dialogue to understand the intent of the words, and this reader believes the intent could’ve been well meaning and not malicious.



Comment Two
P-003 contains the second comment from the defendant -- “urm we are ger” -- ”and bribery isnt a nice thingi”

We again must reiterate that it is not clear that the defendant is talking to the plaintiff in this matter. This particular piece of evidence doesn’t extend off of P-002, so there’s context missing to the conversation. The plaintiff is speaking about the PCR and how they “dislike” the plaintiff “doing nice thingis”. The defendant speaks up in what seems like an opportunity to promote their party. “Urm, we are ger” -- “and bribery isn’t a nice thingi”

For all the court is aware, the previous conversation was someone asking about political parties, or if someone had asked “Which political party can I bribe?”

While the use of “thingi” may seem contentious at first, I again must suggest that without the evidence to support that a prior conversation wasn’t taking place it is not possible to reliably determine where the use of it originated within the context of the conversation. And while maybe seeming unlikely, I would remind the court that the ‘Y’ and ‘I’ keys on QWERTY and DVORAK keyboards are quite close.



Witness Testimony
The witness testimony is impactful. Nobody wants to see one of Redmont’s citizens humiliated or feeling belittled, but It is important that this court recognize that this testimony is over a misunderstanding, not defamatory remarks directed at the plaintiff.

The potential harm alleged that ‘No one messaged for help that day’, cannot be placed entirely at the feet of the defendant. The plaintiff had also opened a similar case against another citizen in the same interaction (Vernicia v. Omegabiebel [2025] FCR 4), in combination with the messages (Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 - P-001 & P-002) from the defendant in that case (Omegabiebel), which would potentially indicate that even if traffic had slowed that day, it may not have been entirely if at all, because of the defendant. It is not clear that the plaintiff receives any messages at all in response to their ads. A reduction of interest in the Ad is not identifiable by this court from testimony alone.



In Summary
The plaintiff has to prove the damages occurred and they have failed to do so. They have provided a myriad of words to create the illusion of well founded points and precedent, but in reality this case is nothing more than a misunderstanding layered under smoke and mirrors.

Both comments made by the defendant are most likely the result of a misunderstanding, but it’s equally valid to consider that even if these comments were directed at Vernicia, it should be considered Political Communication a freedom outlined in Part IV - RIGHTS & FREEDOMS.33(VI) - ‘Freedom of Political Communication’.


The defence asks this court to consider a balance of probabilities in line with the evidence and testimony offered. Is it possible, likely even, that Ryland’s words were misconstrued or taken out of context? The second comment being removed from prior context (P-002 doesn’t line up with P-003), might suggest a topic had occurred in chat unrelated to the Plaintiff’s comment.

We ask this court to consider the damages alleged, and the damages proven. We’ve spoken about the plaintiff’s Testimony and while it is impactful, it is not enough to prove the damages being alleged. The evidence provided does not indicate any loss in reputation or humiliation toward the plaintiff.


Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am beginning to review this case now. This court will be in recess while I review the arguments at hand and draft a verdict.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1.The plaintiff argues that the defendant made knowingly false accusations against Vernicia, which were intentionally designed to harm her reputation.
2. The plaintiff argues that humiliation can be considered a legitimate consequence of defamation, and that Vernicia has testified that she felt humiliated by the defendant's statements. The plaintiff claims that anyone in her position would feel the same way.
3. The plaintiff argues that defamation can be defined as "a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation." Highlighting that the current legislation has been updated to correct previous oversights and ensure that the burden of proof does not fall unjustly on those who have already suffered from false statements. The Plaintiff highlights a key aspect of the new law, showing how it removes the requirement to prove specific damages, allowing the court to award damages based on the harm caused by the Defendant's actions.
4. Plaintiff uses this definition to establish that the defendant's statements meet all the requirements of defamation.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant firmly asserts their right to engage in political communication, citing the right to Political Communication as a legal basis for protecting their speech.
2. The defendant repeatedly stresses the lack of concrete evidence directly linking their statements to Vernicia, highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the context of the chat interactions and offers alternative readings of both contested comments, suggesting benign or even beneficial intentions behind them.
3. The defendant repeatedly stresses the lack of concrete evidence directly linking their statements to Vernicia, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence of damages like reputational harm or financial loss, arguing that testimony alone is insufficient to prove that traffic substantially slowed due to the defendant’s statements.
4. The defense emphasizes the plaintiff's responsibility to prove guilt, citing common law principles ([2022] FCR 72), the Judicial Standards Act, and the Legal Damages Act.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Congress has purposefully and intentionally changed the law on defamation when it enacted the No More Defamation Act (see Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act) and repealed the Defamation Act 2020 (see Repealed - Defamation Act October 2020)
2. That the language of the now repealed act of “are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.” is not in force. However, despite the language being removed, general principles of the Judicial Standards Act require a Balance of Probabilities (see Section 13(1)(a), Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act) that claims be proven in a court of law.
3. The main difference between the new Act of Congress and the repealed act is removal of the requirement for a plaintiff to prove “intent to harm reputation.”
4. Therefore, the new standard for proving defamation is that the defamation “injures a third parties reputation” through either libel or slander. This definition still aligns with the common law definition as applied, which is "1. 1. The statement must be published. 2. The statement must be false. 3. The statement must have caused damage" (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63). That being said, a plaintiff no longer has to prove an intent to harm.
5. That the defendant did say “*in return, you join her political party” to the plaintiff.
6, That the defendant did say “and bribery isn[‘]t a nice thing[]” generally in the global chat. The plaintiff’s evidence does not breach the threshold required to prove that this statement was directed at the plaintiff. Nor, if it was directed at the plaintiff, that the statement was slanderous because it is an obvious statement of fact and not a false accusation of a crime.
7. The Court shall enter a longer form verdict here:

The issue before this court is whether or not the defendant’s statement constituted slander that did injure the plaintiff’s reputation. There are many rules that could be employed here, but the court is going to focus on the prima facie case as presented.

There are three screenshots involved in this matter and one witness testimony. The first screenshot, known as P-001, shows the defendant making the statement “*in return, you join her political party” immediately after the plaintiff posted an ad stating “->->->-> /msg Vernicia <-<-<-<- You are new player needing help with housing[,] work or anything else[?] Will help you for free.” The defendant’s statement does correlate with the plaintiff’s statement. The defendant sent three other messages in this screenshot, none of which were directed at the plaintiff nor are contested by the plaintiff. The second screenshot, known as P-002, shows no messages sent by the defendant and is not used to support any facts in the plaintiff’s case and thus will be ignored. The third screenshot, known as P-003, shows the defendant making the statement “and bribery isn[‘]t a nice thing[].” The court has determined that the plaintiff could not prove that this statement was either directed at them; nor slanderous because it is an obvious statement of fact and not a false accusation of a crime. Two other messages were sent in this screenshot, none of which were directed at the plaintiff nor contested by the plaintiff.

As for the witness testimony, the plaintiff themself testified. The plaintiff stated that the experience “quite hurted me, also was quite humiliating experience due to others joining”, offering that “Noone answered and people were from that time whole day ignoring it while it impacted my political reputation… now people call me even [fascist] and reacting quite badly to my campaign.” The defendant, when asked the following question “5. When these accusations came out, did you see people in the chat agreeing / adding on to Ryland’s claims?” answered with “5) - There was few.” On cross-examination, the defendant’s public defender asked “2. Do you believe anyone believed what RylandW allegedly said?” which the plaintiff responded with “2 - Yes.”

Based on the screenshots provided, answer #5 for the plaintiff’s questions and answer #2 for the defendant’s questions is unsubstantiated. There was one other player also chatting with the defendant, Omegabiebal, whom the plaintiff also sued for slander (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vernicia v. OmegaBiebel [2025] FCR 4). However, Based on the evidence provided, no one else was involved in this situation. There is no proof that the plaintiff’s reputation was harmed on the statement made. Additionally, the case against Omegabiebal would end by Nolle Prosequi due to “out-of-court compromises and new understandings” and be dismissed by the court (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vernicia v. OmegaBiebel [2025] FCR 4).

The court is struggling with this here. How does the statement “*in return, you join her political party” lead to people calling the plaintiff a fascist? How is this statement “outrageous conduct” required by the Legal Damages Act that would lead to this Court granting punitive damages (see 5(1)(a), Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act. )? Additionally, the Legal Damages Act requires evidence for consequential damages (see 7(3)(a), Id.). How is this singular statement enough to spiral into humiliation? The court has not been presented with any evidence of harm claimed by the plaintiff, such as less new players coming in to visit them for help, a noticeable decrease in sales, or actual harm to their election efforts. The court cannot come up with a number to compensate the plaintiff for six words said against them, and certainly cannot calculate how the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the alleged slander somehow equaled $10,000 dollars of punitive damages and $25,000 dollars of consequential damages.

It should be stated that the court is generously searching for a way to make the plaintiff’s claim work. The plaintiff’s complaint made a cause of action for defamation through slander by arguing that the defendant accused them of committing bribery. As have been pointed out twice now, the court has dismissed this claim out-of-hand because the plaintiff could “not breach the threshold required to prove that this statement was directed at the plaintiff. Nor, if it was directed at the plaintiff, that the statement was slanderous because it is an obvious statement of fact and not a false accusation of a crime.” Taking the plaintiff’s facts in the best light and applying them with the claims for relief against simply the prima facie case of slander shows that the plaintiff cannot overcome this simple hurdle, let alone possible defenses under common law or the constitution.

Therefore, the defendant’s statement did not constitute slander that also did not harm the defendant’s reputation.

8. The plaintiff's lawyers presented a compelling argument given the challenging circumstances of this case. It is important to remember that not every case is guaranteed a win, and it's the responsibility of the attorney to assess the strength of their client's case before proceeding. The lack of sufficient evidence at the complaint and moving past discovery presented a significant hurdle to success. While we recognize the law firm’s strong advocacy, due to these evidentiary concerns, the court is unable to award legal fees for the plaintiff.

IV. DECISION
1. This Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant, and grants no Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.