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

[Matthew100x]

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.

Rejected. A cursory review of the evidence seems to suggest that the alleged defamatory statements have some sort of link. It is not for this court to draw inferences nor throw out the evidence at this present time.

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.

Rejected. The hearsay objection exception applies.

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

The defendant still must adhere to the timing imposed by this court order to post an answer to the complaint.

 

[Superbiebel]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


ANSWER TO COMPLAINT





Vernicia


Plaintiff





v.





Omegabiebel


Defendant





I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


1. The defense AFFIRMS that the statements attributed to the defendant in P-001 through P-003 were made by the defendant.


2. The defense DISPUTES the alleged meaning behind these statements.


3. The defense DISPUTES the claims made by the plaintiff.





II. DEFENCES

1. The “and become a russian” statement refers to Vernicia’s “Lil Russia” organisation/housing complex.
2. The private conversation was of informational character and refers to a ban that was active between the 7th and 25th of January.
3. The “before u know it ur banned” statement refers to the speed at which it was decided that the defendant be banned. This happened within the span of less than an hour as can be seen in D-03 through D-05.
4. The defendant did not belittle, defame or mock the plaintiff and did not do the above “extensively” or “relentlessly”
5. The defendant did not explicitly or implicitly say, imply or otherwise suggest dangerousness or untrustworthiness in any way including by nationality.
6. The defense sees a lack of evidence on the part of the plaintiff.
7. The defense would like to highlight that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to prove that these statements are false, not for the defense to prove that these statements are true.

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 5th day of february 2025

 

[Matthew100x]

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_]

The plaintiff motions to pause this case, as out-of-court settlement negotiations are under way.

 

[Superbiebel]

The defense affirms this.