Lawsuit: In Session Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24

[zLost]

Your Honor, AlexanderLove has not provided any evidence that they are representing Vernicia. We ask that the court urges him to provide proof of representation.

 

[Vernicia]

Your honor, for the sake of time and judicial resources, I want to state for the record that I am representing myself in this case and that AlexanderLove did have authorization to represent me earlier as a representative of Mezimori, where I hold an attorney license and therefore invoked the supervising practice provisions of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

 

[juniperfig]

Greetings. I will be taking over as presiding officer for this case until April 2nd, as Kai is on a leave of absence.

Your honor, for the sake of time and judicial resources, I want to state for the record that I am representing myself in this case and that AlexanderLove did have authorization to represent me earlier as a representative of Mezimori, where I hold an attorney license and therefore invoked the supervising practice provisions of the Modern Legal Reform Act.

Please provide evidence that you held the Attorney license at the time of AlexanderLove's post. You have 24 hours to submit this evidence.

 

[Vernicia]

I meean you can check my /about O,O. It is unreasonable to expect me to prove when I obtained the attorney license as proving this simply is not possible. If you feel like there was a mistake, then the onus is on you or the DOJ to support that, respectfully .

 

[juniperfig]

As the courts cannot confirm your status as an Attorney at the time of AlexanderLove's posting, AlexanderLove's post will be struck from the record, as there is no way to prove his eligibility to practice law in the Federal courts. Please ensure to retain record of acquiring qualifications in the future to avoid this possibility.

The Plaintiff has 35 hours remaining to post a closing statement, preferably from someone legally qualified to do so.

 

[Vernicia]

Your Honor, AlexanderLove has not provided any evidence that they are representing Vernicia. We ask that the court urges him to provide proof of representation.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

Answer to Complaint

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

Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Tonga1 (Represented by zLost)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence affirms Fact 1, however denies that the names ‘Vernicia’ ‘Bezzer’ were clearly visible in the background.
2. The Defence neither affirms nor denies Fact 2.
3. The Defence denies Fact 3.
4. The Defence affirms Fact 4.

II. DEFENCES
1. First of all, the Plaintiff alleges that Tonga1's statement, even if directed at Vernicia's campaign, were true. Let us analyze the definition of a fascist:

an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.

From this, it's clear that there are _ conditions required by definition for someone to be a facist:
a. Extremely right-wing (Exhibit A)
b. Favouring a strong central government (Exhibit B)
c. Aggressively promoting your own country or race above others (Exhibit C)
d. Not allowing opposition (Exhibit D)

Condition a. Vernicia herself has stated that they are right-wing, and that they are choosing to be a capitalist, which is widely considered to be right wing.
Condition b. Vernicia's campaign ran on policies that would theoretically benefit the government. Central government is defined as:

the government of a whole country, rather than local government

As a majority of these policies would benefit the government, therefore strengthening it, it's safe to assume that Vernicia supports a strong central government.
Condition c. Vernicia has degraded "westerners" and "americans" many times, therefore it is fair for the Defendant to assume that Vernicia supports her race over others, specifically westerners. Vernicia has also said that they are better than everyone else, by stating that everyone else is lesser.
Condition d. Vernicia has said that they don't support the SWP (a former party), simply due to the fact that they wouldn't "kneel" to her.
2. The Defendant is protected by the right to political communication. Stating the ideology you believe someone follows is a political statement, similar to how someone would state that [party] is left-leaning or [player] is a capitalist.
3. In regards to the ending sentence of Claim for Relief 2, Compensatory Damages, and Consequential Damages 1 and 3, of the 11 people who reacted in support to the first message, there were 9 WPR members, 1 GER member and 1 RRP member (Exhibit E). Members of these parties are highly unlikely to have considered voting for Vernicia in the first place. Following this, there was only one time when an independent reacted in support of the message, this independent being A29_2. However, even they are not likely to have been swayed due to their disdain for Vernicia because of their previous encounters with them (Exhibit F). There is currently zero explicit evidence that anyone's vote changed simply due to the campaign post.
4. In regards to Argen_Lee's statement, Argen_Lee was presumably already a member of the WPR before Tonga1's campaign message was sent (Exhibit G). Therefore, it's very possible that they held this political opinion before the campaign message and that their vote nor opinion was swayed by the campaign post. Correlation is not causation.
5. In regards to Consequential Damages 2, Fascism does not constitute untrustworthiness by its definition. If someone were to regard a fascist as untrustworthy, it is not the fault of the Defendant.
6. In regards to Punitive Damages, the Legal Damages Act (link) stipulates:

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.

The Defendant has not shown outrageous conduct, having simply stated their political opinion of the Plaintiff. As a matter of fact, no evidence regarding the Defendant's alleged conduct is given by the Plaintiff's counsel. Therefore, there is no basis for asking for punitive damages. Besides that, the whole point of campaigning is to increase your chances of winning, therefore it does not make any sense as to how campaigning in order to increase your chances of winning is outrageous conduct.

Spoiler: EXHIBIT A

View attachment 52384View attachment 52397

Spoiler: EXHIBIT B

View attachment 52382View attachment 52383

Spoiler: EXHIBIT C

View attachment 52385View attachment 52386View attachment 52387View attachment 52388View attachment 52389View attachment 52390

Spoiler: EXHIBIT D

View attachment 52391View attachment 52392

Spoiler: EXHIBIT E (STRUCK)

STRUCK View attachment 52393 STRUCK

Spoiler: EXHIBIT F

View attachment 52394

Spoiler: EXHIBIT G

View attachment 52396

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 4th day of March 2025

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

 

[Vernicia]

​

Closing Statement

Closing Statement​

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered in witness of this case, this is a simple case of common sense. While the Court likely misinterpreted the spirit of the opening, I must reiterate that it is pinnacle to the argument at play. The Court is presumed to use common sense and reason, and it is paramount that the Court continue to do so. The case here is not a complicated one: Tonga1 called Vernicia a fascist -- an incredibly loaded term with a lot of baggage in the eyes of a reasonable person -- in the middle of a high profile election.

To prove libel, we must prove the following elements more likely than not, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt:

• That the statement was false: Vernicia is not a fascist. She does not advocate for the centralization of power to the point of authoritarianism nor does she actively use policies to suppress all of her opposition (even if she expresses disagreement with members of the opposition). Fascists, when people think of them, are people like certain German rulers. Whether we want to play semantics with the denotative definition or use common sense by evaluating what people actually perceive to be true with the connotative definition, Vernicia does not fit the bill for being a fascist. The whole point of the libel law is to prevent people from untruthfully harming others' reputations. Whether this untruth is done overtly or by exploiting peoples' associations with certain words, falsehood is still present in Tonga's statement.
• That the statement was damaging: Being labelled a fascist is not a compliment. A reasonable person believes that a fascist is a negative attribute for a politician, and a reasonable person would not vote for a fascist to become President (albeit that is getting harder and harder to claim in certain places!). The false pretense to cause damages negate any rights to free speech as established by the Constitution and case law.
• That the statement caused damages: Vernicia lost the Presidential election by a narrow margin. We have photo evidence of at least 11 people who agreed with the false sentiment proposed by Tonga, with at least one of those actively perpetuating the rumor in a politics channel. All of these people were potential voters, with many of them actually being once affiliated with Vernicia. Regardless of the Presidential outcome, the claims were humiliating and widespread, impacting her ability to enjoy the political scene free of harassment and to enjoy a good reputation grounded in the truth.

Today, we have met that burden of proof through argumentation and evidence. When we ask the Court to be reasonable, we mean for the Court to look through the facts as a reasonable person, an objective standard used in common law, and award appropriate damages to make my client whole once more. Thank you.

 

[Vernicia]

Motion

Request for Default Judgment

Anticipating the fact that zLost won’t be able to prove with certainty he was a barrister when he posted his answer to complaint, and that his answer to complaint would therefore be struck, the defense is left without a proper answer.

Under rule 3.6, the plaintiff can request default judgment for failure to submit defense, and so the Court has no choice under the procedures but to grant a default judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. Thank you.

 

[Vernicia]

Your Honor, AlexanderLove has not provided any evidence that they are representing Vernicia. We ask that the court urges him to provide proof of representation.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

 

[Vernicia]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Plaintiff has stated that we should ignore the dictionary definition, when they themselves were the ones who brought it up in the beginning. Redmont is to use the Oxford Dictionary for defining words as stated by the Clarity Act (link), there is no legal basis to using the connotative definition. However, it is not the fault of the Defendant what other people believe when they saw his message. The Defendant expressed his opinion on Vernicia's ideology from his experiences with her. This is protected under political communication in the Constitution. Not only that, the Defence is using the dictionary definition to prove that Tonga1's statement weren't false, which in this matter the connotative definition does not matter at all. It would be the same as thinking that to be a fascist, you have to literally become the german leader that the Plaintiff has referenced.

The Plaintiff states that Vernicia works together collaboratively with everyone, including her former enemies. However, from the demeanor seen in Exhibit D, it's much more likely that this is not true and there is no evidence that suggests otherwise. Not only that, the Plaintiff's lawyer appears to have a misunderstanding of where these messages were posted. They are talking about the news channel, when in reality this was posted in the campaign channel, as stated earlier many times, which is meant for political propaganda.

Civil cases are a balance of probabilities. There has been no witness testimony, no evidence, basically nothing at all which can prove that the Plaintiff did indeed lose out on votes. It's much more likely that everyone who had seen the message already had their mind made up about their vote, as they were all a member of political parties who had presidential candidates running. There has been no evidence which shows that they had any intention of not voting for their party's presidential candidate. The Plaintiff is correct in that people can vote however they want, but as stated by the Plaintiff themselves and by the Defence earlier, civil cases are a balance of probabilities and it's much more likely that they did not vote for Vernicia. Not only that, there is no guarantee that Vernicia would've won had they survived the first elimination round, and it's actually more likely that they wouldn't have won due to the fact that xEndeavour dislikes Bezzer who was Vernicias Vice Presidental candidate. This would mean that it would be more likely for xEndeavour to endorse 1950 rather than Vernicia.

The Plaintiff would also like to bring attention to the fact that there has been no evidence given for the alleged 10 days of playtime in the past 30 days of the Plaintiff in regards to compensatory damages.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

 

[Vernicia]

The Defence wishes to submit the following evidence:

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 52451View attachment 52452

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE



These statements are irrelevant, due to the fact that the Plaintiff ran as an independant and the RPP's policies are not being brought into question.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your Honor, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Department of Education as the current Secretary of Education as it relates to the Qualifications of Legal exams as slated our responsibility in Modern Legal Reform Act Section 5.2(d) 'The Department of Education must: -- Maintain records of all qualified legal practitioners', simply to clear matters up on who was qualified and when.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Department of Education as the current Secretary of Education as it relates to the Qualifications of Legal exams as slated our responsibility in Modern Legal Reform Act Section 5.2(d) 'The Department of Education must: -- Maintain records of all qualified legal practitioners', simply to clear matters up on who was qualified and when.

You may.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

The records we have for the following counsel are:

Vernicia - Attorney - 3/24/2025 4:11:45 WET
zLost - Attorney - 3/7/2025 20:45:23 WET
Dartanboy - (first) Attorney - 3/5/2025 7:15:01 WET
AlexanderLove - Attorney - 3/24/2025 3:31:54 WET
twilight2660 - Attorney - 3/12/2025 3:32:31 WET
I would also note for the record; because it relates to the question at hand, that upon the passage of the Modern Legal Reform Act, there were transitional provisions around this topic -- 'during the grace period, anyone possessing a legal license can file cases in any court without reprimand, penalty, or exclusion.'
3/3/2025 was the passage of this Act, and two weeks thereafter would be 3/17/2025

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

Motion

Request for Default Judgment

Anticipating the fact that zLost won’t be able to prove with certainty he was a barrister when he posted his answer to complaint, and that his answer to complaint would therefore be struck, the defense is left without a proper answer.

Under rule 3.6, the plaintiff can request default judgment for failure to submit defense, and so the Court has no choice under the procedures but to grant a default judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. Thank you.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something. I motion to strike zLost’s statement as we have no proof he was legally qualified to represent his client when he posted that opening. The Court must compel zLost to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you.

In consideration of the Amicus Brief, each motion is denied.

Additionally, I warn the Plaintiff to be wary of Contempt of Court. Spamming motions to each posting is entirely unnecessary and disrupts the proceedings of the court. This is your official warning. Any future stunts will have you held in contempt.

The Defence has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.

 

[zLost]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The Plaintiff argues that Vernicia is not a fascist, however the Defence has proved through the Clarity Act that Vernicia most likely meets more requirements to be fascist then to not be a fascist, and therefore is more likely to be a fascist. The Defendants statements are political opinions. The Defence would like to bring to the court's attention the verdict of following two cases:

zLost v. AdventurousAkio 2023 DCR 3
The presiding judge here rules in favour of the Defendant, stating that the act of calling an anarchist party non-anarchist is protected under political communication. The same situation applies here, having the political opinion that a candidate adheres a certain ideology is political communication.

LilDigiVert v. Krix 2021 DCR 4
The presiding judge states in their verdict:

While it is not a fact in issue, I am very dissuaded by the concept that slander would not apply in the #politics channel. It is my opinion that extending the right to freedom of political communication to all words uttered in this channel would be an overreach by far.

The #campaign channel is very similar to #politics, being almost the same in their purposes of sharing political propaganda/opinions. Therefore, the judges verdict should apply here as well.

While both these cases are non-binding on the Federal Court, they serve as a good reference in interpretations of the law.

The Plaintiff also states that many of the people who reacted were once affiliated with Vernicia, presumably talking about the WPR. While it is true that the WPR was once affiliated with Vernicia, this serves as an argument for the Defence, not the Plaintiff. Why would a member of the WPR vote for someone who had broken ties with them, especially in a discordant manner? It's clear that throughout this case there has been very little evidence outside of unlikely situations to prove that Vernicia truly was affected by this statement, which most likely wasn't even false.

The Plaintiff states that a reasonable person would not vote for a fascist, however in politics you cannot just use a broad term such as "a reasonable person". A left wing person wouldn't vote for a ring wing person, a right wing person wouldn't vote for a left wing person, and so on. Even if it may be apparently harming to the country, someone may not vote a certain candidate simply if they do not share political views, and this cannot even be called unreasonable because politics is very subjective. Therefore, it cannot be said that a reasonable person wouldn't vote ____ because of ____, as such a reasonable person does not exist in politics.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I request to edit the closing statement in order add the following bolded letters in this sentence:

Even if it may be apparently harming to the country, someone may not vote a certain candidate simply if they do not share political views, and this cannot even be called unreasonable because politics is very subjective.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I request to edit the closing statement in order add the following bolded letters in this sentence:

Even if it may be apparently harming to the country, someone may not vote a certain candidate simply if they do not share political views, and this cannot even be called unreasonable because politics is very subjective.

You may.

 

[juniperfig]

The court will hereby enter recess pending verdict.