Lawsuit: In Session Vernicia v. OmegaBiebel [2025] FCR 4

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

OmegaBiebel
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. OmegaBiebel responded to the offer by extensively belittling Vernicia in public, unprompted. OmegaBiebel mocked Vernicia relentlessly, claiming that she was untrustworthy, mocking her for how she conducts business, and even using her nationality against her. 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. OmegaBiebel (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. In response to another player's accusation against Vernicia, OmegaBiebel added that prospective players receiving help from Vernicia would have to "become a russian", accusing Vernicia of somehow being dangerous or untrustworthy due to her real-life nationality. (P-001)
3. It goes without saying that there are no nationality-related strings attached to Vernicia's services to new players.
4. OmegaBiebel went on to add, "before u know it ur banned from her stores", further attempting to belittle and defame Vernicia for the way in which she conducts business. (P-002)
5. It is well within the plaintiff's rights to choose who gets access to her private property, and to moderate her businesses as she pleases.

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.
• In particular, the defendant’s ludicrous claim that prospective players who receive help from the plaintiff must somehow “become a [R]ussian” constitutes a transparent attempt to defame Vernicia’s reputation on the basis of her country of origin, as well as being a self-evidently false accusation.

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, some of which were directed at her personal nationality, 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 private messages with the plaintiff, the defendant did not apologize when questioned, but rather doubled down, making it clear that his intent was to make the plaintiff the butt of a joke. The defendant’s cruel attempt at humor and claim that the plaintiff “can’t take [a joke]” do not absolve him of responsibility for the humiliating effects of his actions.
• 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

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

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

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.

OmegaBiebel
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. OmegaBiebel responded to the offer by extensively belittling Vernicia in public, unprompted. OmegaBiebel mocked Vernicia relentlessly, claiming that she was untrustworthy, mocking her for how she conducts business, and even using her nationality against her. 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. OmegaBiebel (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. In response to another player's accusation against Vernicia, OmegaBiebel added that prospective players receiving help from Vernicia would have to "become a russian", accusing Vernicia of somehow being dangerous or untrustworthy due to her real-life nationality. (P-001)
3. It goes without saying that there are no nationality-related strings attached to Vernicia's services to new players.
4. OmegaBiebel went on to add, "before u know it ur banned from her stores", further attempting to belittle and defame Vernicia for the way in which she conducts business. (P-002)
5. It is well within the plaintiff's rights to choose who gets access to her private property, and to moderate her businesses as she pleases.

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.
• In particular, the defendant’s ludicrous claim that prospective players who receive help from the plaintiff must somehow “become a [R]ussian” constitutes a transparent attempt to defame Vernicia’s reputation on the basis of her country of origin, as well as being a self-evidently false accusation.

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, some of which were directed at her personal nationality, 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 private messages with the plaintiff, the defendant did not apologize when questioned, but rather doubled down, making it clear that his intent was to make the plaintiff the butt of a joke. The defendant’s cruel attempt at humor and claim that the plaintiff “can’t take [a joke]” do not absolve him of responsibility for the humiliating effects of his actions.
• 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.

 

[_bashi_]

Your honor, may I file an amicus brief?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Please provide proof of representation.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your honor, may I file an amicus brief?

Please share what you wish to discuss and your relevant qualifications for the interest of the court.

View attachment 51041

Thank you.

 

[_bashi_]

Please share what you wish to discuss and your relevant qualifications for the interest of the court.


Thank you.

Thank you, your honor.

Firstly, please forgive me for any informalities or misconduct I make in this brief as I am relatively new to this and I am not aware of what's acceptable and what isn't in this court.

As a new player, I saw the plaintiff's ads at one point. I decided to reach out to her about acquiring housing as a new player. She did exactly that. She gave me an apartment to start out in and paid for my rent for the first three months of the lease. She has only benefitted me and hasn't asked for anything in return. I can also confirm that the plaintiff has never said that I must "become Russian" like the defendant claimed. In addition, I have never been banned from the plaintiff's stores like the defendant claimed.

So in conclusion, the plaintiff has no malicious intent like the defendant supposedly claims and everything the plaintiff says in her ads is all true. I know because I used the plaintiff's services and none of what the defendant has claimed has happened to me.

 

[Superbiebel]

The defendant is present

 

[Superbiebel]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Amicus Brief made by _bashi_ is basically testimony which cannot be cross-examined. The defense therefore requests this brief to be struck, and have the plaintiff call _bashi_ as a witness at the appropriate time.

 

[Superbiebel]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The plaintiffs lawyer claims in their SWORN complaint that Vernicia is Russian:

• “...and even using her nationality against her”
• “...prospective players receiving help from Vernicia would have to "become a russian", accusing Vernicia of somehow being dangerous or untrustworthy due to her real-life nationality.”
• “It goes without saying that there are no nationality-related strings attached to Vernicia's services to new players”
• “...receive help from the plaintiff must somehow “become a [R]ussian” constitutes...”

As seen in exhibit D-01 and D-02 there are at least 50 (!) statements made directly by Vernicia that she is Moravian, which is a region part of the Czech Republic.
Either the plaintiff's lawyer lied directly to the court, the plaintiff itself lied to their own lawyer or the plaintiff's lawyer was so extremely negligent that they did not even investigate the factual basis for this complaint. Since the nationality being the factual basis of an allegation of slander and defamation, this cannot possibly be a clerical error.

The defense requests that:

• Any statement regarding Vernicia’s nationality being Russian struck
• The court either charges the plaintiff with perjury/contempt of court or;
• The court orders the DOJ to start an investigation into perjury.

 

[Superbiebel]

(deleted since posted accidentally)

 

[Superbiebel]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The plaintiff alleges that the defendant used the Russian nationality of Vernicia to defame her is simply false. Vernicia is not Russian(see objection). The defendant could not possibly accuse the plaintiff for being untrustworthy and dangerous due to being a Russian if the plaintiff is simply not a Russian. The reference was clearly to the area and organization “lil Russia” or “Little Russia” that the plaintiff leads and built together with their associates (see D-06 to D-12). The defense would also like to highlight that the defendant never explicitly or implicitly said, implied or otherwise suggested that being Russian means that you are dangerous or untrustworthy.
   
   
2. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The statement ”before u know it ur banned from her stores“ refers to the speed at which the defendant was banned from the plaintiff’s stores. This can be seen in exhibit D-03 to D-05, from the #global channel in the DC discord. The ban happened after less then an hour of conversation and only a small amount of messages so it is exceedingly clear this statement is true.
   
   
3. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The defendant was never asked to apologize according to the plaintiff’s own evidence and therefore could not possibly “double down”. Additionally the comments of not being able to take a joke refer to the conversation in D-03 to D-05.

By extension if the underlying statements are clearly not false as alleged, there cannot be humiliation damages.

The complaint is littered with inaccuracies and false statements just to try to make something stick. As this complaint lacks any and all merit, the defense requests the case to be dismissed with prejudice.

If full dismissal of the case is not possible, the defense requests the Court to partially dismiss the case on the parts it agrees should be dismissed. These parts then should be struck.

 

[Superbiebel]

exhibits

 

[Kaiserin_]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The plaintiffs lawyer claims in their SWORN complaint that Vernicia is Russian:

• “...and even using her nationality against her”
• “...prospective players receiving help from Vernicia would have to "become a russian", accusing Vernicia of somehow being dangerous or untrustworthy due to her real-life nationality.”
• “It goes without saying that there are no nationality-related strings attached to Vernicia's services to new players”
• “...receive help from the plaintiff must somehow “become a [R]ussian” constitutes...”

As seen in exhibit D-01 and D-02 there are at least 50 (!) statements made directly by Vernicia that she is Moravian, which is a region part of the Czech Republic.
Either the plaintiff's lawyer lied directly to the court, the plaintiff itself lied to their own lawyer or the plaintiff's lawyer was so extremely negligent that they did not even investigate the factual basis for this complaint. Since the nationality being the factual basis of an allegation of slander and defamation, this cannot possibly be a clerical error.

The defense requests that:

• Any statement regarding Vernicia’s nationality being Russian struck
• The court either charges the plaintiff with perjury/contempt of court or;
• The court orders the DOJ to start an investigation into perjury.

Your honor, if I may, this is a moot point. In the first place, the complaint in fact never lists Vernicia's nationality as Russian - that was the claim made by the defendant in in-game chat - rather, the complaint simply responds to said claim at face value. In the second place, nationality refers just as much to identity as it does to place of birth, and my client clearly identifies in the defense's own evidence that she is of "Russo-Polish origin" (D-001). People may belong to multiple nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures, as is the case with my client.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Amicus Brief made by _bashi_ is basically testimony which cannot be cross-examined. The defense therefore requests this brief to be struck, and have the plaintiff call _bashi_ as a witness at the appropriate time.

The defense is very much willing to call _bashi_ as a witness at the appropriate time, should it be the court's desire. The defense was not made aware of _bashi_'s desire to file an amicus brief prior to its filing.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The plaintiff alleges that the defendant used the Russian nationality of Vernicia to defame her is simply false. Vernicia is not Russian(see objection). The defendant could not possibly accuse the plaintiff for being untrustworthy and dangerous due to being a Russian if the plaintiff is simply not a Russian. The reference was clearly to the area and organization “lil Russia” or “Little Russia” that the plaintiff leads and built together with their associates (see D-06 to D-12). The defense would also like to highlight that the defendant never explicitly or implicitly said, implied or otherwise suggested that being Russian means that you are dangerous or untrustworthy.
   
   
2. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The statement ”before u know it ur banned from her stores“ refers to the speed at which the defendant was banned from the plaintiff’s stores. This can be seen in exhibit D-03 to D-05, from the #global channel in the DC discord. The ban happened after less then an hour of conversation and only a small amount of messages so it is exceedingly clear this statement is true.
   
   
3. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The defendant was never asked to apologize according to the plaintiff’s own evidence and therefore could not possibly “double down”. Additionally the comments of not being able to take a joke refer to the conversation in D-03 to D-05.

By extension if the underlying statements are clearly not false as alleged, there cannot be humiliation damages.

The complaint is littered with inaccuracies and false statements just to try to make something stick. As this complaint lacks any and all merit, the defense requests the case to be dismissed with prejudice.

If full dismissal of the case is not possible, the defense requests the Court to partially dismiss the case on the parts it agrees should be dismissed. These parts then should be struck.

Your honor, the defense respectfully requests permission to respond to this Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Superbiebel]

Your honor, if I may, this is a moot point. In the first place, the complaint in fact never lists Vernicia's nationality as Russian - that was the claim made by the defendant in in-game chat - rather, the complaint simply responds to said claim at face value. In the second place, nationality refers just as much to identity as it does to place of birth, and my client clearly identifies in the defense's own evidence that she is of "Russo-Polish origin" (D-001). People may belong to multiple nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures, as is the case with my client.

Your honor, I would respectfully like to request permission to respond to this response since the plaintiff is trying to reframe things last minute. I have several arguments to make that would directly contradict this response.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your honor, the defense respectfully requests permission to respond to this Motion to Dismiss.

You may do so.
Please file your response within the next 48 hours.

Your honor, I would respectfully like to request permission to respond to this response since the plaintiff is trying to reframe things last minute. I have several arguments to make that would directly contradict this response.

Responses to the second degree are not permitted generally. The court finds that the Plaintiff’s responses does not warrant a special response.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The plaintiffs lawyer claims in their SWORN complaint that Vernicia is Russian:

• “...and even using her nationality against her”
• “...prospective players receiving help from Vernicia would have to "become a russian", accusing Vernicia of somehow being dangerous or untrustworthy due to her real-life nationality.”
• “It goes without saying that there are no nationality-related strings attached to Vernicia's services to new players”
• “...receive help from the plaintiff must somehow “become a [R]ussian” constitutes...”

As seen in exhibit D-01 and D-02 there are at least 50 (!) statements made directly by Vernicia that she is Moravian, which is a region part of the Czech Republic.
Either the plaintiff's lawyer lied directly to the court, the plaintiff itself lied to their own lawyer or the plaintiff's lawyer was so extremely negligent that they did not even investigate the factual basis for this complaint. Since the nationality being the factual basis of an allegation of slander and defamation, this cannot possibly be a clerical error.

The defense requests that:

• Any statement regarding Vernicia’s nationality being Russian struck
• The court either charges the plaintiff with perjury/contempt of court or;
• The court orders the DOJ to start an investigation into perjury.

Overruled.

The filing and the evidence submitted alongside make it very clear that the Defendant made the false claim that the Plaintiff was Russian. The Plaintiff, has appropriately justified their use of language in their filing.

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Amicus Brief made by _bashi_ is basically testimony which cannot be cross-examined. The defense therefore requests this brief to be struck, and have the plaintiff call _bashi_ as a witness at the appropriate time.
Click to expand...

Sustained.

Given both parties are in agreement with _bashi_ being called upon as a witness, the Plaintiff or Defendant may add their name to the witness list during discovery. The brief is hereby struck.

 

[Kaiserin_]

You may do so.
Please file your response within the next 48 hours.

Thank you, your honor.

Motion​

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The plaintiff alleges that the defendant used the Russian nationality of Vernicia to defame her is simply false. Vernicia is not Russian(see objection). The defendant could not possibly accuse the plaintiff for being untrustworthy and dangerous due to being a Russian if the plaintiff is simply not a Russian. The reference was clearly to the area and organization “lil Russia” or “Little Russia” that the plaintiff leads and built together with their associates (see D-06 to D-12). The defense would also like to highlight that the defendant never explicitly or implicitly said, implied or otherwise suggested that being Russian means that you are dangerous or untrustworthy.
   
   
2. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The statement ”before u know it ur banned from her stores“ refers to the speed at which the defendant was banned from the plaintiff’s stores. This can be seen in exhibit D-03 to D-05, from the #global channel in the DC discord. The ban happened after less then an hour of conversation and only a small amount of messages so it is exceedingly clear this statement is true.
   
   
3. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The defendant was never asked to apologize according to the plaintiff’s own evidence and therefore could not possibly “double down”. Additionally the comments of not being able to take a joke refer to the conversation in D-03 to D-05.

By extension if the underlying statements are clearly not false as alleged, there cannot be humiliation damages.

The complaint is littered with inaccuracies and false statements just to try to make something stick. As this complaint lacks any and all merit, the defense requests the case to be dismissed with prejudice.

If full dismissal of the case is not possible, the defense requests the Court to partially dismiss the case on the parts it agrees should be dismissed. These parts then should be struck.

The defendant seeks to have the court dismiss the case at hand, in whole or in part, on the grounds of a series of highly disputable technicalities. The court has already dismissed the defendant's objection to the first supposed error, and both the second and third seem likewise attempts on the defendant's behalf to have the case dismissed without ever giving the court the opportunity to consider the facts and arguments at play.

The second "error" does nothing but provide already-known context to a statement made by the defendant, and the third blatantly misconstrues the wording of the complaint - the plaintiff never suggested that the defendant was asked to apologize, only that they did not do so.

If the defendant wishes to dispute the facts of the case as presented in the complaint, they should do so in a response filing, and if they wish to provide context for their statements, they should do so once the trial commences. The plaintiff thus respectfully urges the court to begin the discovery process as soon as possible, with the original complaint fully intact.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The plaintiff alleges that the defendant used the Russian nationality of Vernicia to defame her is simply false. Vernicia is not Russian(see objection). The defendant could not possibly accuse the plaintiff for being untrustworthy and dangerous due to being a Russian if the plaintiff is simply not a Russian. The reference was clearly to the area and organization “lil Russia” or “Little Russia” that the plaintiff leads and built together with their associates (see D-06 to D-12). The defense would also like to highlight that the defendant never explicitly or implicitly said, implied or otherwise suggested that being Russian means that you are dangerous or untrustworthy.
   
   
2. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The statement ”before u know it ur banned from her stores“ refers to the speed at which the defendant was banned from the plaintiff’s stores. This can be seen in exhibit D-03 to D-05, from the #global channel in the DC discord. The ban happened after less then an hour of conversation and only a small amount of messages so it is exceedingly clear this statement is true.
   
   
3. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error): The defendant was never asked to apologize according to the plaintiff’s own evidence and therefore could not possibly “double down”. Additionally the comments of not being able to take a joke refer to the conversation in D-03 to D-05.

By extension if the underlying statements are clearly not false as alleged, there cannot be humiliation damages.

The complaint is littered with inaccuracies and false statements just to try to make something stick. As this complaint lacks any and all merit, the defense requests the case to be dismissed with prejudice.

If full dismissal of the case is not possible, the defense requests the Court to partially dismiss the case on the parts it agrees should be dismissed. These parts then should be struck.

Rejected.

Facts are to be disputed in an answer to complaint using evidence submitted during discovery; not in motion to dismiss.

As far as the court is concerned, the facts remain undisputed till the defense asserts otherwise in a response filing.

The use of Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) is for filings that contain indisputably false information. This is not the case.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

 

[Matthew100x]

Can the parties kindly inform me if anything is currently pending?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Can the parties kindly inform me if anything is currently pending?

Your honor, this case needs to enter discovery.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, this case needs to enter discovery.

Any outstanding objections?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Any outstanding objections?

No, your honor, nothing is currently pending.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Court shall now enter into discovery for the next 72 hours.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The plaintiff would like to submit _bashi_ and Vernicia as witnesses.

 

[Matthew100x]

The plaintiff would like to submit _bashi_ and Vernicia as witnesses.

Noted.

 

[Superbiebel]

Your honor,

I would like to request to extend the discovery deadline by 48 hours, since I got an Alternating Current exam.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the plaintiff agree?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Yes, the plaintiff consents to an extension of discovery.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted, Discovery extended for 48 additional hours.

 

[Superbiebel]

The defense would like to request the following things from the plaintiff:

1. A list of plots which are part of the "Lil Russia"/"Little Russia" housing complex and/or organization.
2. A list of people banned from establishments, shops, plots, and other locations managed and/or owned by Vernicia, with the names marked if Vernicia herself banned them and the reason for the ban in those cases.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defense would like to request the following things from the plaintiff:

1. A list of plots which are part of the "Lil Russia"/"Little Russia" housing complex and/or organization.
2. A list of people banned from establishments, shops, plots, and other locations managed and/or owned by Vernicia, with the names marked if Vernicia herself banned them and the reason for the ban in those cases.

Request denied, you can find them yourself.

 

[Matthew100x]

The defense would like to request the following things from the plaintiff:

1. A list of plots which are part of the "Lil Russia"/"Little Russia" housing complex and/or organization.
2. A list of people banned from establishments, shops, plots, and other locations managed and/or owned by Vernicia, with the names marked if Vernicia herself banned them and the reason for the ban in those cases.

Can I get an explanation as to why you're looking for this information and to what Court Rule you are requesting this information under?

 

[Superbiebel]

Exhibits D-01 until D-12 are voluntarily submitted in discovery.

EDIT: D-12, not D-13. Small clerical error.

 

[Matthew100x]

Discovery is now over. The defendant has 72 hours to post an answer.

 

[Superbiebel]

Your honor,

Discovery still has a few hours on the clock(timezone GMT+1). The 120 hour deadline (72 hours + 48 hours extension) hasn't ran out yet.

 

[Superbiebel]

Can I get an explanation as to why you're looking for this information and to what Court Rule you are requesting this information under?

Under court rule 4.7 a party may request information from the opposing party:

The plot list for "Lil Russia" is requested to estimate the presence this organization has on the server. This relates to the referencing of “Lil Russia” in the statements made by the defendant.

The list of banned players is directly relevant to this case, as the opposing party accuses the defendant of making a false statement regarding the plaintiff’s ‘business practices,’ specifically concerning the trespassing or banning of players. Therefore, the defense should have the right to request information related to this.

 

[Superbiebel]

Voluntary submission for discovery.
Note: D-15 was taken on the 8th of January.

 

[Superbiebel]

Motion

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

The complaint alleges several instances of nationality being used to accuse the plaintiff of having a bad characteristics such as untrustworthiness:

1. “..and even using her nationality against her”
2. “...accusing Vernicia of somehow being dangerous or untrustworthy due to her real-life nationality”
3. “In particular, the defendant’s ludicrous claim that prospective players who receive help from the plaintiff must somehow “become a [R]ussian” constitutes a transparent attempt to defame Vernicia’s reputation on the basis of her country of origin.”

The use of nationality to assign bad characteristics is prejudicing and stereotyping someone(definition in D-14 at the bottom). These allegations therefore constitute allegations of racism according to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary(D-13), which may not be handled under this court. These allegations, regardless if they are true or not, must be handled by staff under the server rules which take precedence over laws.

The defense would like to request under rule 5.4 that the claim of using nationality to insult and defame be dismissed, and that the language regarding this claim be struck.

The defense realizes that rule 5.4 primarily relates to cases filed in a wrong court, when for example a 1 million dollar damages case gets filed in district court, and should be moved to the federal level. The defense however would contend that the staff institution contains a special type of court, since they perform a very similar function of adjudicating on issues when moderating. Additionally they have adjudicated people guilty on issues of election fraud in the past when this was still partly a rule and a law, and just referred these people to a court for sentencing. (Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [[2021] FCR 52)

NOTE: The dictionary is an absolute pain to get into. I had to use my student credentials to get the full definition. D-14 and D-13 are for this reason attached.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

Relevance

The plaintiff objects to all defense exhibits under relevance. NONE of them actually go toward the matter at hand: that the defendant piggy-backed on allegations of bribery and supported the same, adding on to them. All exhibits are attempting to split hairs over things like exact geographic location, definitions that are irrelevant to the case, and conversations about banning people from shops. How is any of that relevant? Let's not let a smooth talker distract us from the matter at hand: omega participated in defaming my client.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Voluntary submission for discovery.
Note: D-15 was taken on the 8th of January.

Objection

Hearsay

D-003 through D-005 and D-016 show out of court conversations used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. They are therefore hearsay and must be struck as the statements contained within are not under oath and are not able to be cross-examined.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Under court rule 4.7 a party may request information from the opposing party:

The plot list for "Lil Russia" is requested to estimate the presence this organization has on the server. This relates to the referencing of “Lil Russia” in the statements made by the defendant.

The list of banned players is directly relevant to this case, as the opposing party accuses the defendant of making a false statement regarding the plaintiff’s ‘business practices,’ specifically concerning the trespassing or banning of players. Therefore, the defense should have the right to request information related to this.

Your honor, the information requested is not relevant and is public information. The defense is attempting to use the plaintiff to conduct their investigation for them when they can go out and get the information they seek.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

Discovery still has a few hours on the clock(timezone GMT+1). The 120 hour deadline (72 hours + 48 hours extension) hasn't ran out yet.

You are correct, my estimate for the end of discovery was incorrect.

Under court rule 4.7 a party may request information from the opposing party:

The plot list for "Lil Russia" is requested to estimate the presence this organization has on the server. This relates to the referencing of “Lil Russia” in the statements made by the defendant.

The list of banned players is directly relevant to this case, as the opposing party accuses the defendant of making a false statement regarding the plaintiff’s ‘business practices,’ specifically concerning the trespassing or banning of players. Therefore, the defense should have the right to request information related to this.

1. Denied. The plaintiff banned the defendant from their store. The Court does not have present knowledge on what they are banned from. The Court is not going to grant discovery on the entire organization of "Lil Russia" just because the defendant was banned.

However the court Grants a request for information in-line with the above rejection. Can the plaintiff please clarify where the defendant is banned from for the court and for the defendant.

2. Denied. There is no relevancy in knowing the list of banned players from the plaintiff's plots in this case.

Motion

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

The complaint alleges several instances of nationality being used to accuse the plaintiff of having a bad characteristics such as untrustworthiness:

1. “..and even using her nationality against her”
2. “...accusing Vernicia of somehow being dangerous or untrustworthy due to her real-life nationality”
3. “In particular, the defendant’s ludicrous claim that prospective players who receive help from the plaintiff must somehow “become a [R]ussian” constitutes a transparent attempt to defame Vernicia’s reputation on the basis of her country of origin.”

The use of nationality to assign bad characteristics is prejudicing and stereotyping someone(definition in D-14 at the bottom). These allegations therefore constitute allegations of racism according to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary(D-13), which may not be handled under this court. These allegations, regardless if they are true or not, must be handled by staff under the server rules which take precedence over laws.

The defense would like to request under rule 5.4 that the claim of using nationality to insult and defame be dismissed, and that the language regarding this claim be struck.

The defense realizes that rule 5.4 primarily relates to cases filed in a wrong court, when for example a 1 million dollar damages case gets filed in district court, and should be moved to the federal level. The defense however would contend that the staff institution contains a special type of court, since they perform a very similar function of adjudicating on issues when moderating. Additionally they have adjudicated people guilty on issues of election fraud in the past when this was still partly a rule and a law, and just referred these people to a court for sentencing. (Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [[2021] FCR 52)

NOTE: The dictionary is an absolute pain to get into. I had to use my student credentials to get the full definition. D-14 and D-13 are for this reason attached.

Rejected. If you believe that there is a staff issue at play, please open a staff ticket and share with them your concerns. The Court has original jurisdiction over the legal claims at play, we're not here to adjudicate a staff matter. The staff team has not contacted the court about any potential staff issue.

It is also important to note that in the case listed, the case still went on to decide the legal consequence. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [[2021] FCR 52). If there is an issue of alleged racism that is being admitted by the defendant, we can skip to sentencing/deciding the legal consequence of the alleged defamation at hand. Given that this seriously harms the defendant, I am going to be rejecting this argument at hand.

 

[Matthew100x]

Discovery now has ended. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement. When the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[Kaiserin_]

However the court Grants a request for information in-line with the above rejection. Can the plaintiff please clarify where the defendant is banned from for the court and for the defendant.

The plaintiff clarifies that the defendant is not currently banned from any of Vernicia's plots. The defendant has been informed as such by the plaintiff out of court.

 

[Superbiebel]

Discovery now has ended. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement. When the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement.

Your honor,

My answer to complaint needs to be posted first. This case is still under the old rules where answer to complaint comes after discovery.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

My answer to complaint needs to be posted first. This case is still under the old rules where answer to complaint comes after discovery.

You are correct, please post your answer within the next 72 hours.

 

[Superbiebel]

Answer to objection for hearsay

There is only an objection for hearsay on testimony from a witness, not on evidence submissions according to the objection guide. Additionally Vernicia, a party in the conversation in the screenshots is on the witness list.

The defense would also like to highlight that it isn’t only the content of the messages, but even more so the timestamps associated with the messages that will be used in arguments. These timestamps cannot possibly be hearsay. If the contents of the messages should be struck according to the opinion of the Court, then the defense requests the timestamps of these messages be preserved.

Relevance objection

Exhibits D-01 and D-02 relate to the “become russian” statement. The plaintiff refers in their complaint to the real life nationality of Vernicia, therefore these exhibits should be allowed.

Exhibits D-3 through D-05 a relate to the “before u know it ur banned” statement. The defendant referred to this conversation in that statement, and especially the timestamps of these messages. The plaintiff has not shown any evidence proving or indicating otherwise.

Exhibits D-06 through D-12 relate to the “become russian” statement. The defendant referred to the “Lil Russia” organization/housing complex. The exhibits mentioned directly relate to the existence of this.

Exhibits D-15 and D-16 relate to the existence and length of the referred ban in the "before you know it ur banned" statement.

The defense would like to strongly urge the court to deny this objection, and exercise caution. No answer to complaint or further filings have been able to be submitted that may further illustrate the relevance of these exhibits in arguments.