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

[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.