Verdict
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1.The plaintiff argues that the defendant made knowingly false accusations against Vernicia, which were intentionally designed to harm her reputation.
2. The plaintiff argues that humiliation can be considered a legitimate consequence of defamation, and that Vernicia has testified that she felt humiliated by the defendant's statements. The plaintiff claims that anyone in her position would feel the same way.
3. The plaintiff argues that defamation can be defined as "a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation." Highlighting that the current legislation has been updated to correct previous oversights and ensure that the burden of proof does not fall unjustly on those who have already suffered from false statements. The Plaintiff highlights a key aspect of the new law, showing how it removes the requirement to prove specific damages, allowing the court to award damages based on the harm caused by the Defendant's actions.
4. Plaintiff uses this definition to establish that the defendant's statements meet all the requirements of defamation.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant firmly asserts their right to engage in political communication, citing the right to Political Communication as a legal basis for protecting their speech.
2. The defendant repeatedly stresses the lack of concrete evidence directly linking their statements to Vernicia, highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the context of the chat interactions and offers alternative readings of both contested comments, suggesting benign or even beneficial intentions behind them.
3. The defendant repeatedly stresses the lack of concrete evidence directly linking their statements to Vernicia, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence of damages like reputational harm or financial loss, arguing that testimony alone is insufficient to prove that traffic substantially slowed due to the defendant’s statements.
4. The defense emphasizes the plaintiff's responsibility to prove guilt, citing common law principles ([2022] FCR 72), the Judicial Standards Act, and the Legal Damages Act.
III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Congress has purposefully and intentionally changed the law on defamation when it enacted the No More Defamation Act (see Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act) and repealed the Defamation Act 2020 (see Repealed - Defamation Act October 2020)
2. That the language of the now repealed act of “are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.” is not in force. However, despite the language being removed, general principles of the Judicial Standards Act require a Balance of Probabilities (see Section 13(1)(a), Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act) that claims be proven in a court of law.
3. The main difference between the new Act of Congress and the repealed act is removal of the requirement for a plaintiff to prove “intent to harm reputation.”
4. Therefore, the new standard for proving defamation is that the defamation “injures a third parties reputation” through either libel or slander. This definition still aligns with the common law definition as applied, which is "1. 1. The statement must be published. 2. The statement must be false. 3. The statement must have caused damage" (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63). That being said, a plaintiff no longer has to prove an intent to harm.
5. That the defendant did say “*in return, you join her political party” to the plaintiff.
6, That the defendant did say “and bribery isn[‘]t a nice thing[]” generally in the global chat. The plaintiff’s evidence does not breach the threshold required to prove that this statement was directed at the plaintiff. Nor, if it was directed at the plaintiff, that the statement was slanderous because it is an obvious statement of fact and not a false accusation of a crime.
7. The Court shall enter a longer form verdict here:
The issue before this court is whether or not the defendant’s statement constituted slander that did injure the plaintiff’s reputation. There are many rules that could be employed here, but the court is going to focus on the prima facie case as presented.
There are three screenshots involved in this matter and one witness testimony. The first screenshot, known as P-001, shows the defendant making the statement “*in return, you join her political party” immediately after the plaintiff posted an ad stating “->->->-> /msg Vernicia <-<-<-<- You are new player needing help with housing[,] work or anything else[?] Will help you for free.” The defendant’s statement does correlate with the plaintiff’s statement. The defendant sent three other messages in this screenshot, none of which were directed at the plaintiff nor are contested by the plaintiff. The second screenshot, known as P-002, shows no messages sent by the defendant and is not used to support any facts in the plaintiff’s case and thus will be ignored. The third screenshot, known as P-003, shows the defendant making the statement “and bribery isn[‘]t a nice thing[].” The court has determined that the plaintiff could not prove that this statement was either directed at them; nor slanderous because it is an obvious statement of fact and not a false accusation of a crime. Two other messages were sent in this screenshot, none of which were directed at the plaintiff nor contested by the plaintiff.
As for the witness testimony, the plaintiff themself testified. The plaintiff stated that the experience “quite hurted me, also was quite humiliating experience due to others joining”, offering that “Noone answered and people were from that time whole day ignoring it while it impacted my political reputation… now people call me even [fascist] and reacting quite badly to my campaign.” The defendant, when asked the following question “5. When these accusations came out, did you see people in the chat agreeing / adding on to Ryland’s claims?” answered with “5) - There was few.” On cross-examination, the defendant’s public defender asked “2. Do you believe anyone believed what RylandW allegedly said?” which the plaintiff responded with “2 - Yes.”
Based on the screenshots provided, answer #5 for the plaintiff’s questions and answer #2 for the defendant’s questions is unsubstantiated. There was one other player also chatting with the defendant, Omegabiebal, whom the plaintiff also sued for slander (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vernicia v. OmegaBiebel [2025] FCR 4). However, Based on the evidence provided, no one else was involved in this situation. There is no proof that the plaintiff’s reputation was harmed on the statement made. Additionally, the case against Omegabiebal would end by Nolle Prosequi due to “out-of-court compromises and new understandings” and be dismissed by the court (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vernicia v. OmegaBiebel [2025] FCR 4).
The court is struggling with this here. How does the statement “*in return, you join her political party” lead to people calling the plaintiff a fascist? How is this statement “outrageous conduct” required by the Legal Damages Act that would lead to this Court granting punitive damages (see 5(1)(a), Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act. )? Additionally, the Legal Damages Act requires evidence for consequential damages (see 7(3)(a), Id.). How is this singular statement enough to spiral into humiliation? The court has not been presented with any evidence of harm claimed by the plaintiff, such as less new players coming in to visit them for help, a noticeable decrease in sales, or actual harm to their election efforts. The court cannot come up with a number to compensate the plaintiff for six words said against them, and certainly cannot calculate how the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the alleged slander somehow equaled $10,000 dollars of punitive damages and $25,000 dollars of consequential damages.
It should be stated that the court is generously searching for a way to make the plaintiff’s claim work. The plaintiff’s complaint made a cause of action for defamation through slander by arguing that the defendant accused them of committing bribery. As have been pointed out twice now, the court has dismissed this claim out-of-hand because the plaintiff could “not breach the threshold required to prove that this statement was directed at the plaintiff. Nor, if it was directed at the plaintiff, that the statement was slanderous because it is an obvious statement of fact and not a false accusation of a crime.” Taking the plaintiff’s facts in the best light and applying them with the claims for relief against simply the prima facie case of slander shows that the plaintiff cannot overcome this simple hurdle, let alone possible defenses under common law or the constitution.
Therefore, the defendant’s statement did not constitute slander that also did not harm the defendant’s reputation.
8. The plaintiff's lawyers presented a compelling argument given the challenging circumstances of this case. It is important to remember that not every case is guaranteed a win, and it's the responsibility of the attorney to assess the strength of their client's case before proceeding. The lack of sufficient evidence at the complaint and moving past discovery presented a significant hurdle to success. While we recognize the law firm’s strong advocacy, due to these evidentiary concerns, the court is unable to award legal fees for the plaintiff.
IV. DECISION
1. This Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant, and grants no Prayer for Relief.
The Federal Court thanks all involved.
