Lawsuit: Adjourned Dearev v. Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14

[dearev]

1. State your name for the record please
2. Have you seen the symbols message?
3. Have you seen the defamatory message? (P-003)
4. Where were the messages posted at?
5. What was your reaction opon seeing the defamatory message?
6. Before the article was posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?
7. Have you heard anyone talking about this article after it was posted?
Thank you.

 

[Kaiserin_]

3. Have you seen the defamatory message? (P-003)

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question

No messages have been established to be defamatory, despite what the plaintiff alleges.

7. Have you heard anyone talking about this article after it was posted?

Objection

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

 

[dearev]

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question

No messages have been established to be defamatory, despite what the plaintiff alleges.

Objection

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Its clear that the article being referenced to is P-003.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question

No messages have been established to be defamatory, despite what the plaintiff alleges.

Objection

Ambiguous, compound question

Which article? There are two articles being discussed. If the plaintiff is asking about both, then this is a compound question.

Objection 1 (Assumes facts not in evidence, leading question)
Sustained, please rephrase the question

Objection 2 (Ambiguous, compound question)
Sustained, please rephrase the question

 

[dearev]

1. State your name for the record please
2. Have you seen the symbols message?
3. Have you seen the message? (P-003)
4. Where were the messages posted at?
5. What was your reaction opon seeing the article?
6. Before the articles were posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?
7. Have you heard anyone talking about the article (P-003) after it was posted?
Thank you.

 

[Inalite]

1. State your name for the record please

Inalite

2. Have you seen the symbols message?

Yes, I have seen the cryptic messages (and have tried reaching out to Alexandria news and Darev for a hint to decrypt them)

3. Have you seen the message? (P-003)

I have seen the message

4. Where were the messages posted at?

In the #news channel

5. What was your reaction opon seeing the article?

Reaching out to Darev for help to decrypt the messages

6. Before the articles were posted, did you ever heard any acusations of me being a 'scammer'?

No

7. Have you heard anyone talking about the article (P-003) after it was posted?

No, not that I remember, probably due to the fact that the article got deleted by staff not long after.

 

[ko531]

If the plaintiff doesn't have any follow up questions then the defense can cross examine.

 

[dearev]

If the plaintiff doesn't have any follow up questions then the defense can cross examine.

The plaintiff is done questioning, thank you your honor.

 

[ko531]

Defense has 48 hours to either ask the witness questions or declare to the court that they have no questins

 

[Kaiserin_]

Defense has 48 hours to either ask the witness questions or declare to the court that they have no questins

No questions from the defense, your honour.

 

[ko531]

The witness is excess. We will be moving to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statement

 

[dearev]

The witness is excess. We will be moving to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statement

Your honor, the plaintiff requestes a 24h extension period due to personal reasons.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, the plaintiff requestes a 24h extension period due to personal reasons.

Granted

 

[dearev]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
May it please the court,

Today we stand in favour of Justice becuse, the defendant on february 3rd 2025 posted a message with various characters that didn't mean anything (P-001). Defendant then sent another message arguing that 'I posted that message' and therefore I was a ‘scammer’ (P-003), The defendant showed no proof of me posting the message with the characters (P-001).

Furthermore, D-001 confirms that the defendant, Plura72, was the one who posted the defamatory statement (P-003), yet the symbols message (P-001) is missing from the provided records.

According to the court

There is a publishing channel in Alexandrian News's discord that articles are posted in by individual users for the purpose of being put in #news. The only reason a record like this shouldn't exist is if it was deleted purposely.

Therefore, this proves the defendant deleted the message to conceal evidence, this should not go left unpunished.

Under the no more defamation Act. Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act
it defines the following
Defamation as:
“Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.”
Libel as:
“A method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession or organization.”
Slander as:
“A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.”
Your Honor, the defendant’s actions clearly meet these definitions. By fabricating claims, publicly damaging my bussinesses reputation and my reputation, and deleting evidence to avoid accountability, the defendant has shown blatant disregard for the truth and the legal process.

The plaintiff believes we have provided sufficient evidence to prove of the defendants guilt, and because of the damages it caused we ask for:

1. A public apology acknowledging the false statements.
2. $10,000 in damages for reputational harm and defamation.

Thank you your honor.

 

[ko531]

The defense has 72 hours to post their closing statements.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The defense would like to request a 48 hour extension for closing statements. Real-life obligations and my recently coming into possession of a law firm, along with my other responsibilities, have made prioritizing this case difficult.

 

[ko531]

The defense would like to request a 48 hour extension for closing statements. Real-life obligations and my recently coming into possession of a law firm, along with my other responsibilities, have made prioritizing this case difficult.

Granted

 

[Kaiserin_]

Closing Statement

Good evening, your honour, opposing counsel, and other distinguished guests of the court.

May it please the court,
Throughout the case of this trial we have seen the plaintiff present a number of poorly written and flimsily justified arguments in an attempt to convince you that my client is a liar. The defense urges the court to examine the facts of this case critically, and to ask itself a simple question: has there been enough proof presented to the court to demonstrate, or even make it seem likely, that the defendant defamed the plaintiff?

On the facts
The situation present in this case is an odd one - any observer would be remiss not to admit that. On February 3rd, Alexandrian News published a mysterious article containing cryptic symbols. This prompted mild intrigue for some, as evidenced by the witness testimony provided, but overall did not cause a public stir. Nevertheless, it was unprofessional and unbecoming of a news organization. It is clear that Alexandrian News felt the same, as the article was later deleted, and a follow-up article containing an explanation was posted.
This follow-up article revealed some strife within the organization. Its publisher made it clear that the plaintiff, Dearev, was responsible for the previous article, communicated that he had been fired, and expressed some disdain for him. No doubt, there had been an altercation of some kind behind the scenes.
Despite this article being made public, it appears that it had little to no impact. It did not stay up for long, being deleted by staff, and the plaintiff has only shown that one singular observer even thought anything of the series of events. This singular observer noted that they had not heard anyone else talking about the article. By all accounts, the court has been shown that there was no widespread attention, positive or negative, garnered by either article in question today.

Who posted the article?
The question remains regrettably unanswered. While the defense has made (unfortunately unsuccessful) efforts along with the defendant to find solid proof that the original, mysterious article was not created by Plura, all trace of it has been removed. The defense has cooperated with court requests to provide chat logs in an attempt to uncover the truth, even providing logs in video format despite not being required to, but no record remains of the article containing the symbols. What can the court gleam from this? As the honourable magistrate correctly pointed out, someone must have posted the article and deleted the message in the Alexandrian News channel. The plaintiff, who had access to post in this channel, had motive to do this. While no hard proof could be found, it remains true that Dearev had every reason to remove the traces of him having posted the unprofessional article, likely for justified fear for his standing within the company, seeing as he was later terminated. This remains the defense’s position, and was the timeline of events communicated by the defendant both to his legal counsel and to the public. Without any kind of evidence to the contrary presented by the plaintiff, neither the court nor the defendant’s counsel have any reason to believe that this is not what happened.

What constitutes defamation?
The No More Defamation Act, along with well-established common law principles, outline three basic conditions for a statement or publication to be classified as defamation: it must be published, it must be false, and it must have damaged one’s reputation. This precedent was established in bigpappa140 v. BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63 and upheld mere days ago in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 – the court opinion provided in the latter outlines an excellent and extremely up-to-date precedent for proving defamation that is directly consequential for this case. It is obvious that the article shown in P-002 was published, even if briefly. Therefore, the court must rightfully consider whether the publication was demonstrably false, and whether it was demonstrably damaging to Dearev’s reputation.

On the burden of proof and the balance of probabilities
In all civil cases, and particularly for defamation, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the claim in question was false. The federal court dismissed Unitymaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FRC 16 because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the statements they alleged to be defamatory were false. The judge for this case noted specifically that the case was dismissed due to the plaintiff failing to provide evidence that the statements were false. Further, the district court dismissed xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1 because the plaintiff (once again, specifically) failed to provide any proof that damage had occurred to the plaintiff’s reputation due to alleged defamation. This dismissal was later upheld by the federal court in an appeal, xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] FRC 12. Thus, all established precedent dictates that the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff to provide evidence that the allegedly defamatory publication was both false and damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation. Further, this proof must overcome the balance of probabilities, as established in §13.1.a of the Judicial Standards Act and reaffirmed in the aforementioned court opinion in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

Therefore, the court must ask itself this: has the plaintiff provided enough proof to overcome the balance of probabilities in asserting that the article published on Alexandrian News and showcased in P-002 was both false and damaging to Dearev’s reputation?

In short, no.

The plaintiff has failed, despite ceaseless calls for such and even the close cooperation of the defense, to provide any evidence whatsoever that Dearev did not publish the article in question. The line of events established by Alexandrian News and the defense is that Dearev posted the article and deleted the message in the Discord publications channel – this claim is far from unlikely, because the court knows for a fact that someone did such. The plaintiff has no standing to dispute this claim, because no evidence was provided to substantiate it.
Further, the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that their reputation was tangibly harmed by the article, regardless of its author. It cannot be understated the significance of the fact that the plaintiff’s own witness, who was called to the stand purportedly to prove damage to reputation, admitted that he had not heard of a single other person even discussing the article in question. The article was very quickly deleted, and thus could not possibly have had the reach to cause any amount of damage to Dearev’s public reputation. Undoubtedly, this very case has received more attention than the allegedly “defamatory” article ever did. The court cannot rule, given the evidence (or lack thereof) and testimony provided, that the plaintiff has sufficiently overcome a reasonable balance of probabilities to prove either claim necessary for a publication to qualify as defamation.

Thus, the defense respectfully and emphatically urges the court to award no prayer for relief to the plaintiff, and thanks the presiding magistrate and the opposing counsel for their time.

 

[ko531]

Court is now in recess pending verdict

 

[ko531]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
dearev v Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Alexandrian news posted a defamatory article calling the plaintiff a scammer
2. This article not only was defamatory but caused emotional harm and distress onto the plaintiff

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Plura72 did not write or post the article.
2. The plaintiff is the one who actually wrote the article
3. The plaintiff did not meet the standard of proof for defamation or for balance of probabilities
4. The defense is seeking counterclaims for legal damages

III. THE COURT OPINION

When looking at this case there are two questions that must be answered, who wrote the article and was the standard for defamation met. The evidence leaves much to be desired meaning that these questions must be looked at through a balance of probabilities.

Firstly, let's look at defamation. As defined in the No More Defamation act and later confirmed in Vernicia v. Ryland [2025] FCR 5, To prove defamation you must prove three things. 1. The statement was published 2. The statement was false. 3. The statement caused reputational damage.

Was the statement published?
Yes, it is clearly seen posted in #news.

Was the statement false?
Now while the authorship of the first article is still at question, the second half of the message could be defamatory just as much. even though it was never directly proven that dearev was in fact not a scammer as the article asserts, the statement was never argued to be true. Both sides are arguing that the statement was meant to cause damage, either to dearev or to Plura72/Alexandrian News depending on the author. In order for damage to happen to either party the statement must be false. So the court is confident that the statement was false.

Did the statement cause reputational damage?
The statement was posted, even for the short time it was, in the highly viewed and public channel of #news. It is almost a guarantee that people saw the article. Just because the statement was seen does not mean it was harmful. The issue is because this case was posted so fast, it is hard to gage whether the bulk of the attention and therefore potential of harm is from the article itself or from this case. The only evidence as to the articles reach is the plaintiff's witness which said they saw no one talking about it which leads the court to believe that if any damage occurred it was at most minimum but still harm.

Now as to who wrote the article, it is clear that whoever did covered their tracks by deleting the evidence of their authorship. The only evidence is D-001 which shows the absences of the post, but it also provides some context clues. When looking at D-001 you will see that almost every article was written and posted by plura72 with the exception of 2 from a secondary bot (Spidey bot). When considering the authorship, the court turns to this fact that is must make the finding that it is more probable that Plura72 wrote it and not dearev.

Finally, the court not only must consider the probability of each the author and the harm done, it must also consider the probability of both at the same time. While the court is confident in its assessment that it is more probable that harm was done but minimally and that plura72 wrote the article, it is much less confident that both are true at the same time. There is too much room in being wrong in either answer that both together is a breaking point. For the number of assumptions and deductions done to achieve these answers the court is not confident enough in their combined probability to find someone liable for defamation.


IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Defense but no legal fees will be granted.


The District Court thanks all involved.