Lawsuit: Pending Vernicia v. OmegaBiebel

[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.