Lawsuit: In Session Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
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. RylandW responded to the offer by belittling Vernicia in public and accusing her of crimes that she did not commit. The defendant made entirely unfounded claims, accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her services and committing bribery. 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. RylandW (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. Immediately following the advertisement, RylandW responded, "*in return, you join her political party", accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her offer. (P-001)
3. The plaintiff by no means requires that those new players who she assists join any particular political party.
4. RylandW further doubled down on and clarified his accusation of Vernicia's supposed bribery. In response to Vernicia saying that the defendant did not like her doing nice things, RylandW said "...bribery isnt a nice thingi", echoing a typo that Vernicia had made in order to further belittle her. (P-003)
5. Vernicia has not been found guilty of bribery, and the defendant provided no basis for the supposed bribery claim.
6. RylandW spared no expense in his belittling and accusatory statements, despite the fact that there were multiple people slandering Vernicia, worsening the humiliating situation for the plaintiff.

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.
• The accusation of bribery, in particular, is very clearly both false and malicious. The Commercial Standards Act defines bribery as:
  "The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity."
  There is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff has committed any such crime, and she has not been convicted of, or even charged with, such actions in a court of law. Even if the court assumes that the defendant’s accusation of bribery was meant in a broader sense, referring to the previous assertion about attaching political strings to assistance, there remains absolutely no evidence that such strings exist.
• The plaintiff seeks punitive damages, as outlined in §5.a of the Legal Damages Act, to deter both the defendant and others from engaging in such outrageous and slanderous conduct in the future. By awarding such, the court would be setting a strong precedent against slander, ensuring a fair and just public discourse in Redmont free from the kind of disinformative and personal attacks that the defendant has made against the plaintiff.

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 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 addition to the overall self-evidently belittling nature of the defendant’s speech, his mockery of the plaintiff’s minor spelling error in her message adds insult to injury, given that the plaintiff is not a native English speaker.
• 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

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

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

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

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.

RylandW
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. RylandW responded to the offer by belittling Vernicia in public and accusing her of crimes that she did not commit. The defendant made entirely unfounded claims, accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her services and committing bribery. 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. RylandW (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. Immediately following the advertisement, RylandW responded, "*in return, you join her political party", accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her offer. (P-001)
3. The plaintiff by no means requires that those new players who she assists join any particular political party.
4. RylandW further doubled down on and clarified his accusation of Vernicia's supposed bribery. In response to Vernicia saying that the defendant did not like her doing nice things, RylandW said "...bribery isnt a nice thingi", echoing a typo that Vernicia had made in order to further belittle her. (P-003)
5. Vernicia has not been found guilty of bribery, and the defendant provided no basis for the supposed bribery claim.
6. RylandW spared no expense in his belittling and accusatory statements, despite the fact that there were multiple people slandering Vernicia, worsening the humiliating situation for the plaintiff.

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.
• The accusation of bribery, in particular, is very clearly both false and malicious. The Commercial Standards Act defines bribery as:
  "The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity."
  There is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff has committed any such crime, and she has not been convicted of, or even charged with, such actions in a court of law. Even if the court assumes that the defendant’s accusation of bribery was meant in a broader sense, referring to the previous assertion about attaching political strings to assistance, there remains absolutely no evidence that such strings exist.
• The plaintiff seeks punitive damages, as outlined in §5.a of the Legal Damages Act, to deter both the defendant and others from engaging in such outrageous and slanderous conduct in the future. By awarding such, the court would be setting a strong precedent against slander, ensuring a fair and just public discourse in Redmont free from the kind of disinformative and personal attacks that the defendant has made against the plaintiff.

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 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 addition to the overall self-evidently belittling nature of the defendant’s speech, his mockery of the plaintiff’s minor spelling error in her message adds insult to injury, given that the plaintiff is not a native English speaker.
• 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.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Please provide proof of representation.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

View attachment 51042

Thank you.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defendant has failed to appear before the court over 72 hours after the posted writ of summons. The plaintiff thereby motions for a default judgement based on the established facts of the case.

 

[RylandW]

My apologies, Your Honor, there was a conflict of interest with my usual legal team. I kindly request a 24 hour extension. (I also apologize if this insurance not the correct format.)

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

My apologies, Your Honor, there was a conflict of interest with my usual legal team. I kindly request a 24 hour extension. (I also apologize if this insurance not the correct format.)

Given that you just barely missed the deadline, the customary summary judgement shall not take place. This court will wait for you to acquire legal representation.

This is your final warning to adhere to court deadlines. Answering a summons is a simple thing, simply declare presence. If you are unable to acquire legal counsel, you may request the court to provide you a public defender, or you may choose to represent yourself.

Carry on.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defendant has failed to appear before the court over 72 hours after the posted writ of summons. The plaintiff thereby motions for a default judgement based on the established facts of the case.

Denied.

The Defendant has provided a reasonable request to the court for an extension - and have subsequently declared their presence.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening. Justice Compass will be representing the Defendant.

Spoiler: Representation

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Good evening. Justice Compass will be representing the Defendant.

Spoiler: Representation

View attachment 51166

Thank you.

With the matter of representation settled, Discovery is set for a maximum of 72 hours.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The plaintiff would like to call MikeOxlonger1 and Vernicia as witnesses.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you.

With the matter of representation settled, Discovery is set for a maximum of 72 hours.

Discovery was set at 10:03 PM EST on January 23rd. 72 hours of Discovery has passed. As such, I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

Kindly ask for extensions if you need one.

 

[Dartanboy]

Discovery was set at 10:03 PM EST on January 23rd. 72 hours of Discovery has passed. As such, I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

Kindly ask for extensions if you need one.

Your honor,

I believe it is time for the Defense to file an Answer to Complaint, according to the new Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I believe it is time for the Defense to file an Answer to Complaint, according to the new Court Rules and Procedures.

You are right. The defendant has 72 hours to file their answer. Kindly inform me if you need an extension.

 

[Dartanboy]

You are right. The defendant has 72 hours to file their answer. Kindly inform me if you need an extension.

Your honor, I request an extra 4 hours, as I had a long day at work today and don't want to stay up late tonight/wake up extra early tomorrow in order to finish the filing.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted. Please let me know if you need any more additional time.

 

[Dartanboy]

Answer to Complaint

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

Vernicia
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRM that “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.”
2. AFFIRM that “following the advertisement, RylandW said, "*in return, you join her political party",” however DO NOT AFFIRM NOR DENY this was “accusing Vernicia of attaching political strings to her offer.”
3. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that “the plaintiff by no means requires that those new players who she assists join any particular political party.”
4. DENY that “RylandW doubled down on and clarified his accusation of Vernicia's supposed bribery.” NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that “in response to Vernicia saying that the defendant did not like her doing nice things, RylandW said "...bribery isnt a nice thingi", echoing a typo that Vernicia had made in order to further belittle her.”
5. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that “Vernicia has not been found guilty of bribery, and the defendant provided no basis for the supposed bribery claim.”
6. DENY that “RylandW spared no expense in his belittling and accusatory statements, despite the fact that there were multiple people slandering Vernicia, worsening the humiliating situation for the plaintiff.”

II. DEFENSES
1. Political speech is protected by the Constitution. Claiming that a certain organization has political ties, no matter how major those ties may be (ranging from supporting to requiring customers to join), speaking of them, regardless of their truth value, is protected political speech.
2. There is insufficient evidence to conclude RylandW was referring to Vernicia's advertisements or even talking to Vernicia at all. As far as the evidence shows, it's entirely possible someone was talking with RylandW in local chat but RylandW forgot to switch from /g to /l.
3. Damages for Defamation do need to be proven. The clause stating this was removed because it is redundant – of course no damages are ever presumed in a court of law. The Legal Damages Act requires evidence for most types of damages.
4. RylandW never accused anyone of bribery, only claiming that bribery is not a nice thing.
5. There is insufficient evidence that Vernicia was disgraced.
6. There is insufficient evidence that Vernicia was belittled.
7. There is insufficient evidence that RylandW making the typo “thingi” was an intentional mockery, and not simply another typo.

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 30th day of January, 2025

(Edited to fix formatting)

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 72 hours. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

 

[Kaiserin_]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 72 hours. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

Your honor, I believe that it is now time for the trial to commence and for the plaintiff to give an opening statement, in accordance with the new court rules.

 

[Matthew100x]

My apologies,

I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

 

[Kaiserin_]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, your honor, and may it please the court,
The question before you today is a simple one: should defamation be punished, and should victims of defamation be compensated through the legal system? Throughout the course of this trial, the defense will attempt to subvert your attention and use a number of flimsy arguments, as they already have, to convince you that the defendant's actions were somehow justified, or that they do not constitute defamation. The truth is this - if ever there was an open-and-shut case of defamation, it would be this one.

The Facts
On that fateful day of January 11th, the defendant made a number of severe and egregiously untrue accusations against the plaintiff in a public setting without any kind of proof whatsoever; even now, the defense has provided no evidence to suggest that these statements had any modicum of truth to them. These accusations included a claim that my client required those she gave in-game assistance to to join her political party, and an implied claim that my client had committed bribery. Not only was the content of these accusations slanderous, but the tone in which they were delivered was severely harmful not only to my client's reputation, but also to her emotional state.

The Definitions and Meaningful Variation
The currently active legislation that governs defamation law is the No More Defamation Act, or NMDA, which defines defamation as follows:

"a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander,"

and slander as follows:

"A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."

Notably, these definitions lack a provision which was present in previous legislation. The now-replaced Defamation Act 2020 stated:

"damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law,"

a fact which is not present in the current law. Instead, the NMDA states the following:

"Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer."

What does this mean for the court? The Congress of Redmont, through meaningful variation across legislation, has removed the necessity to prove damages out of the definition for defamation, bringing defamation law in line with all other legislation governing civil offenses. It is clear for the court to see that the defendant's actions do constitute defamation and slander, and were against the law. They check all of the boxes: the statements were false, they were made through in-game messages, and they served a clear and self-evident purpose to damage my client's reputation - a fact that will be expanded upon through witness testimony as the trial proceeds. The legislation and the facts are abundantly clear: RylandW committed slander. Thus, it is up to the court to decide how, and to what extent, the defendant's actions should be punished by considering the merit of the damage claims brought by the plaintiff.

On The Defense
The defense, in their answer to complaint, has provided for the court a number of bad-faith arguments and what-if lines of thinking that will attempt to convince you that the defendant's actions were somehow either justified, or were not directed at the plaintiff at all. If there is any justice in the world, the court will not be fooled. Let us go through them one by one.
1. The defense claims that the defendant's statements were protected political speech. While it is true that political speech is protected under Redmont law, the slander brought against my client goes beyond normal political speech, and ventures well into the territory of illegal and immoral defamation. The Congress of Redmont has made it abundantly clear, by passing legislation that restricts speech without giving any special exemptions to political communication, that the the VI right in the Constitution of Redmont is not absolute. To assume otherwise, as the defense has, would be to assume that defamation in all forms is somehow permissible so long as it is related to a political matter. Considering that nearly all of public discourse in Redmont is political, this line of reasoning goes against not only all conceivable notions of common sense, but also both the letter and spirit of the No More Defamation Act.
2. It should be clear to the court that this is an argument made in bad faith. There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant's statements were intended to be made in private, and it is abundantly clear through the evidence provided by the plaintiff that the defendant was participating in public dialogue while making his undue criticisms of the plaintiff.
3. The defense argues that damages for defense must be proven, regardless of the details of the established legislation. The defense is only partially correct. As previously established, the concept of meaningful variation can be used to deduce that tangible proof of damages needn't be given simply for an act to be considered defamation. Instead, the court shall decide based on the plaintiff's prayers for relief, in conjunction with the Legal Damages Act, how to award damages. The defense refers to this legislation in their answer to complaint, but seems to have neglected to provide specifics.
The plaintiff seeks punitive and consequential damages. LDA §5.2.a states of punitive damages:

"(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous,"

while LDA §5.3.b states:

"(a) In assessing a punitive damage award, the magistrate/judge/justice can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant."

The court shall have to decide, after assessing the evidence provided and the testimony of the witnesses, whether the defendant's conduct was outrageous. It should be abundantly clear to the court from the outset that publicly lying about someone else's actions in an attempt to worsen their public image in conjunction with another person doing the exact same thing (as seen in the evidence) constitutes outrageous conduct. This fact will only become more evident as the trial progresses.
LDA §7.1.a.II defines humiliation as a type of consequential damages:

Humiliation - 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.

LDA §7.3.a further states:

In assessing a consequential damage award, the magistrate/judge/justice must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof.

The court should consider through a reasonable person test whether any reasonable person put in my client's situation would feel disgraced or belittled. The answer should be obvious: my client was defamed in a public forum for things that she did not do - anyone would feel disgraced in the face of such slander. Furthermore, the plaintiff's testimony shall expand on the humiliation that she was forced to endure. This should suffice to address the concerns in defenses 5 and 6 that the defendant provided.
4. The statement "bribery isn't a nice thing" in response to my client's statement that the defendant "dislikes [her] doing nice things" contains a clear and self-evident implied accusation of bribery. The plaintiff stated that she does nice things for others, and the defendant retorted by saying that the plaintiff had committed bribery. There is no room for interpretation here.
7. While the specifics of the defendant's echoing of the plaintiff's typo are not a major crux of this case, and the verdict does not hinge on this fact by any means, it should be noted that it is disingenuous to assume that, out of all other possibilities, the defendant just so happened to make the exact same mistake in the exact same way that my client had. No, it is clear that this was an intentional mockery, and given the already hostile tone of the defendant's previous messages, it is not unreasonable to assume as much without any way of receiving hard confirmation.

The plaintiff encourages the court to keep these factors in mind as this trial progresses, and to consider carefully the context of the incident, the facts of the governing statute, and the testimony of the witnesses that will be called forth in assessing how they intend to rule. The defense thanks the court for its time and thoughtful consideration thus far.

 

[Matthew100x]

My apologies,

I call upon the plaintiff to give an opening statement within the next 72 hours. The defendant shall then have 72 hours to post an opening statement starting at the time when the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails to post one at the 72 hour mark).

The defendant should note that the time for posting their opening statement has already begun.