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

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,
I am present as the PD.

 

[Matthew100x]

Please cross-examine the witness. You'll have 24 hours to ask questions.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Please cross-examine the witness. You'll have 24 hours to ask questions.

Your Honor,

MikeOxlonger1 has been deported therefore his Testimonys if any must be nullified.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

MikeOxlonger1 has been deported therefore his Testimonys if any must be nullified.

His testimony was given when he was not deported.

Edit: whoops

 

[juniperberries]

His testimony was given when he was not deported.

Correction. Mikeoxlonger1 gave no testimony in this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Duly noted from all. @Babysoga4real please cross-examine Vern within the next 18 hours.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Duly noted from all. @Babysoga4real please cross-examine Vern within the next 18 hours.

Your Honor,
We the Defence wish to ask the Witness @Vernicia questions may I proceed?

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor,
We the Defence wish to ask the Witness @Vernicia questions may I proceed?

Yes, you have been able to do so.

 

[Babysoga4real]

@Vernicia questions:

1. What damage did the alleged Action by Ryland W cause for you?
2. Do you believe anyone believed what RylandW allegedly said?
3. Do you believe stating that a crime is a bad thing is wrong?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

2. Do you believe anyone believed what RylandW allegedly said?
3. Do you believe stating that a crime is a bad thing is wrong?

Objection

Speculation, Calls for Conclusion

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection

Speculation, Calls for Conclusion

I am not seeing speculation for either question because the question is asking the witness to talk about their belief of the situation.

That said, Question 3 is struck because it calls for a conclusion.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

the question is asking the witness to talk about their belief of the situation.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Respectfully, your honor, this is the very definition of speculation. Vernicia cannot testify toward what other people believed about the situation.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

Speculation, Calls for Conclusion

Your Honor,

Nothing here calls for conclusion or is objectable in any other Case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

Nothing here calls for conclusion or is objectable in any other Case.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Response to Objection

Your Honor,
I do recall that the Opposing side has 24hours to respond to Motions and Objections.

 

[Babysoga4real]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Respectfully, your honor, this is the very definition of speculation. Vernicia cannot testify toward what other people believed about the situation.

Response to Objection

The Defence may very well ask the Defendant what the Plaintiff was feeling and; or believing. She is asked if she believes that Ryland W alleged Actions where Believed by someone.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Response to Motion

The Defence may very well ask the Defendant what the Plaintiff was feeling and; or believing. She is asked if she believes that Ryland W alleged Actions where Believed by someone.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Counsel was not prompted to respond and motions are not able to be automatically responded to.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Counsel was not prompted to respond and motions are not able to be automatically responded to.

Response to Objection
Your Honor,
Opposing Cousel,

It is stated that in the Introductions to the Courts : "INTRODUCTION
These are the established objections of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that are established through court policy, unless otherwise codified within law. It is important that lawyers and any player who is objecting to a remark made by the opposing party or to a question posed to a witness, use this guide.

Objections are on a per matter issue. One Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter. Any new objections that are raised must be its own individual matter. Such as perjury in an objection or counter objection.

Any objection regarding witness testimony may have new evidence provided with the objection so long as it is relevant to refuting the testimony. The evidence being permitted is at discretion of the Presiding Officer."

This clearly shows that the Opposing Cousel is making false Statements.

 

[Matthew100x]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Respectfully, your honor, this is the very definition of speculation. Vernicia cannot testify toward what other people believed about the situation.

Denied on the grounds that Vernicia's belief of the situation is their direct lived experience of the situation. This testimony from the witness may help the court understand the claims better.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Overruled, the defendant is allowed to make a counter to the objection.

Response to Objection

Your Honor,
I do recall that the Opposing side has 24hours to respond to Motions and Objections.

Please do not speak out of turn. Also please cite sources to the court.

Response to Objection

The Defence may very well ask the Defendant what the Plaintiff was feeling and; or believing. She is asked if she believes that Ryland W alleged Actions where Believed by someone.

Please do not speak out of turn. You had already made an argument on the objection.

Objection

Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

Counsel was not prompted to respond and motions are not able to be automatically responded to.

Granted.

Response to Objection
Your Honor,
Opposing Cousel,

It is stated that in the Introductions to the Courts : "INTRODUCTION
These are the established objections of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that are established through court policy, unless otherwise codified within law. It is important that lawyers and any player who is objecting to a remark made by the opposing party or to a question posed to a witness, use this guide.

Objections are on a per matter issue. One Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter. Any new objections that are raised must be its own individual matter. Such as perjury in an objection or counter objection.

Any objection regarding witness testimony may have new evidence provided with the objection so long as it is relevant to refuting the testimony. The evidence being permitted is at discretion of the Presiding Officer."

This clearly shows that the Opposing Cousel is making false Statements.

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. There is a reason why we only do one objection per issue, to prevent a chain of objections for the court to try and resolve.

---

For both parties, can we please keep objections from turning into a bigger issue. Kindly remember that it is one objection per matter (as the public defender cited above). Can @Vernicia please answer the questions (Q1 and Q2) for the court so that we can proceed with this trial?

 

[Vernicia]

1 - I believe Ryland intentionally caused damage to my reputation. As an important and experienced politician, his actions were deliberately aimed at defaming me by falsely accusing me of bribing people. In addition that day noone messaged me for help i was offering.

2 - Yes

 

[Matthew100x]

We will now be moving to closing statements. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement. When the plaintiff posts their closing statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Babysoga4real]

We will now be moving to closing statements. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement. When the plaintiff posts their closing statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement.

Your Honor,
I am no longer a PD on this.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

I have been assigned to this case as the new public defender.

I ask for a 48 hour extension to review this case and confer with the defendant.

I also ask that the defense may be allowed to cross examine the witness during this time, as closing statement have not begun yet.

Thank you.

Proof of representation:

Spoiler

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I have been assigned to this case as the new public defender.

I ask for a 48 hour extension to review this case and confer with the defendant.

I also ask that the defense may be allowed to cross examine the witness during this time, as closing statement have not begun yet.

Thank you.

Proof of representation:

Spoiler

View attachment 51942

Unfortunately, witness statements have closed at this time. Questions were asked and answered. I do not believe it would be fair to the plaintiff (who is also the witness) to be cross-examined again, even though the defendant's PD was fired during trial. While it is understandably unfair to the defendant, they are choosing to use the public defender system. I don't see this as any different than having a change of attorney mid-trial.

I will be denying the defendant's request for a 48 hour extension since it is currently the plaintiff's time to post closing statement. That said, I will be happy to grant an extension during the defendant's closing statement if asked at that time.

 

[juniperberries]

Your honour,

I've been very busy this week with schoolwork. I respectfully request a 12 hour extension for my closing statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted.

 

[juniperberries]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

May it please the court,

Today, we stand at a critical moment in the interpretation and enforcement of Redmont’s defamation laws. This is the first time a defamation case has been tried under the No More Defamation Act, a law that was intentionally revised to ensure that victims of defamation are properly protected and that falsehoods spread with malicious intent do not go unchecked. The Defendant and their counsel would have you believe that this case is not about defamation at all, but about political speech and unintended consequences. However, the facts and the law speak clearly—this case is about the Defendant making knowingly false and harmful accusations against my client, and now, they must be held accountable.

The law is clear. Defamation is defined as “a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation.” The Defendant’s statements meet every single requirement: they were false, they were communicated in-game, and they directly harmed my client’s reputation by discouraging others from seeking her assistance and by fostering public doubt about her character. The Defendant specifically claimed that my client was using her generosity to bribe new players into joining her political party—an accusation that is entirely baseless and damaging to her credibility.

Unlike the now-rescinded Defamation Act of 2020, which required plaintiffs to prove specific damages, the No More Defamation Act does not impose such a requirement. Instead, it allows the court to determine appropriate damages if defamation is proven. This meaningful variation in legislation should not be ignored. The court must recognize that this law was updated to correct previous oversights and to ensure that the burden of proof does not fall unjustly on those who have already suffered from false statements.

The Defence argues that political speech is a shield against defamation, but the Constitution of Redmont does not grant an unlimited right to defame others. The law does not carve out an exception for political discourse when that discourse is built on lies designed to harm. Political speech may be protected, but slander is not. The precedent that the Defence relies on—where speech was ruled protected despite defamatory implications—does not apply in a case where the statements were explicitly false, made with intent to harm, and had a tangible impact on my client’s ability to assist new players.

The Plaintiff has demonstrated that these statements were not only false but were also intentionally harmful. As an experienced politician, the Defendant knew the weight of their words. They knew that accusing someone of bribery—especially someone who holds a public role—would tarnish her reputation and create doubt among those who would otherwise seek her assistance. The court has heard testimony that, on the day these statements were made, no new players reached out to my client for help. That is real, demonstrable harm.

The Defence claims that no damage was done, that no one believed these statements, and that my client has not suffered. But my client has testified that she did, in fact, suffer. The reasonable person test clearly applies here—any reasonable person in her position would feel humiliated by false public accusations of bribery.

Your Honour, this is not just about one statement or one individual. This case sets a precedent for how the No More Defamation Act will be applied in Redmont moving forward. It is an opportunity for the court to affirm that lies, when spoken with malice and intended to harm, will not be tolerated.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the court rule in favor of the Plaintiff, award appropriate damages, and ensure that justice is served.

Thank you.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

I would like to request for a 72 hour extension at this time.
The public defenders office has been quite a bit busy as of recent.
It would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor,

I would like to request for a 72 hour extension at this time.
The public defenders office has been quite a bit busy as of recent.
It would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Respectfully, your honor, 72 hours is absurd and denies my client the right to a speedy trial. The public defender's office has workers that aren't being utilized, such as KingBob and the director himself, Anaphase_Andy. The PD's office is failing to allocate defenders appropriately and that should not hamper my client's right to get this matter attended to quickly.

 

[Matthew100x]

Respectfully, your honor, 72 hours is absurd and denies my client the right to a speedy trial. The public defender's office has workers that aren't being utilized, such as KingBob and the director himself, Anaphase_Andy. The PD's office is failing to allocate defenders appropriately and that should not hamper my client's right to get this matter attended to quickly.

If you needed 72 hours for something, I would understand. As a presiding judge, it is within my purview to grant or deny extensions as needed. I have already provided your firm 36 hours of extensions (24 hours - Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 and 12 hours Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5). I do not see the harm in granting this extension so that the Public Defender could work for the case. PDs are assigned to cases and do not work like a regular law firms. For the fairness of the defendant, I will be granting this extension request.