- Joined
- Jan 1, 2025
- Messages
- 17
- Thread Author
- #1
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.
- 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.
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:
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
