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

[Dogeington]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RylandW (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

v.

v__d
Defendant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

2. The actions of the defendant also constitute humiliation:

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

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

Witness List:
RylandW
HomelessBum
MissAndrist

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

RylandW Leads the Aventura Mayoral Pre-Poll

Spoiler: P-011

Election - Mayor Election - MARCH 2025 (SPECIAL)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 13th day of April, 2025

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

i see no issue with what v__d said here

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

NEXT PLEASE!

 

[Kaiserin_]

i see no issue with what v__d said here

NEXT PLEASE!

Objection

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

 

[ColonelKai]

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

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

CONTEMPT OF COURT

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

Spoiler: Attachment: Objection

Objection

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

Dated this 18th of April, 2025.

 

[ColonelKai]

Writ of Summons

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

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Dartanboy]

I am present on behalf of v__d.

Spoiler: Representation

 

[ColonelKai]

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

 

[dearev]

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

 

[ColonelKai]

Please justify your request.

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

 

[dearev]

Please justify your request.

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

 

[Dartanboy]

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

If you find me in Contempt, I understand.

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

Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Answer to Complaint

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

v__d
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
Defendant

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

II. DEFENSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: ”D-002”

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 26th day of April 2025.

 

[ColonelKai]

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

Case [2025] FCR 37
Between:
RylandW
v
v__d

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

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

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

Filed this 28th of April, 2025

@Dartanboy @Dogeington @dearev