The Threat

A new $65,000 defamatory lawsuit has recently been filed against v__d, alleging concerning actions. The lawsuit, filed by Dragon Law Firm on behalf of RylandW (herein referred to simply as “Ryland”), alleges that v__d has spread significant and defamatory misinformation about Ryland, a mayoral candidate of Aventura. The tort of defamation is notoriously complex, however egregious and damning evidence has been provided. To show the depth of these defamatory and demonstrably false statements, a selection of v__d’s claims have been selected from the initial filing, with additional commentary provided for context. 

V__d’s Claims

1. Ryland is the sole cause of hyperinflation.
   1. In reality, hyperinflation is often an overused word that, in a purely technical sense, indicates inflation exceeding 50%. Although the DC economy is generally inflating, referring to it as hyperinflation is likely a gross overstatement of what is occurring. It is the opinion of the author of this article that it is irresponsible to refer to any and all inflation as hyperinflation, particularly when such claims are intended to attack the character of a political candidate rather than the quality of their policies. 
   2. It is exceptionally difficult to pinpoint a sole cause of inflation. Certain economic policies are generally a contributing factor, but the Mayor would likely lack sufficient authority to implement policies that would catastrophically increase inflation. Generally, inflation is the result of either consumer product demand outpacing supply or increased supply costs for raw materials. These factors are not strictly relevant to Ryland’s mayoral role, as the level at which changes must be made to counteract inflation at a federal level far exceeds mayoral authority.
   3. It must be noted that, according to documents provided in the initial filing, v__d did not appear to support his claim through any logic, empirical evidence, or reasoning. As such, Hitchens’s Razor, which states that what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, may be applied.
2. Ryland would end “free and fair elections” and would become the “permanent mayor” of Aventura.
   1. This represents a problematic portion of v__d’s claims, as it is highly unlikely that a local official could end the democratic process, as it is not possible to do so without congressional approval, which would likely be struck down with extreme prejudice by the Supreme Court. 
   2. This logic, along with claims of Ryland’s supposed “fake” communism, is reminiscent of McCarthyism, a political action taken during the late 1940s and early 1950s in the United States of America. This is the equivalent of a witch hunt; v__d appears to be using 1940s logic to baselessly claim that Ryland’s sole purpose of re-election is to instill a dictatorship in DC. This is fearmongering and does not represent proper political integrity. 
   3. It is important to note that this claim does not exist in a vacuum, and at a time of political instability, citizens should be given accurate and fair information presented with journalistic integrity. Comments such as these are harmful to the fabric of society.
3. Ryland’s sole purpose for re-election was to achieve “career points” and gain political power.
   1. This claim makes no sense, as Ryland has already served as mayor and does not stand to gain additional political power from being re-elected into the same position in a local government. 

Why this is important

Given v__d’s defamatory statements, this case represents a severe miscarriage of justice, as the body of Aventura voted against Ryland despite previous polls predicting his landslide victory. It is often uncommon yet remarkably important that individuals reject fearmongering and defamation. In order to illustrate this point, it is useful to remember that this case does not exist in a vacuum, as v__d is also under investigation for an attempted insurrection. 

A criminal complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Redmont against v__d on the 6th of April, 2025, contains a dossier of Biblical proportions, in which v__d is charged with 15 criminal offenses in connection with an apparent terrorist attack. These charges (as listed in the criminal complaint) are as follows:

1. One count of corruption
2. Nine counts of incitement
3. Two counts of hostage holding
4. One count of violent disorder
5. Two Counts of Harassment, Alarm, or Distress

In addition to these crimes, an emergency injunction was also filed calling for the immediate removal of v__d from all offices. These remarkably violent crimes are well documented, as well as v__d requesting succession from Redmont as ransom. His actions show willful intent to incite fear in those he considers traitors. Considering this, his actions against Ryland’s mayoral campaign are particularly concerning.

What have we learned?

Various takeaways are evident from this story, the first being that individuals should be wary of taking baseless claims at their face value, especially in the context of an election. Additionally, it must be understood that common decency is an art that is dying at an alarming rate. We must cling to our empathy for one another in the upcoming riptide of political turmoil. Lastly, we have learned the importance of fact-checking everything you hear, particularly when those making such claims find no issue in resorting to terrorism in order to get their way. The novel threat is not just v__d and his reckless political actions: it is the fundamental concept of fearmongering and a willful attempt to misinform constituents for political gain. Remember: the prelude to societal death is willful malfeasance, and the barbaric chants of the insurrectionists must never drown out the thundering of the trumpets of Justice.

Novel threats, or new and unknown threats, naturally emerge in society as a consequence of unpredictability; as disorder increases in the universe, the mildew of catastrophe begins to creep in through the proverbial cracks in the foundation which is society. Depending on an individual’s worldview (and commitment to optimism), this can be attributed to indifferent statistics or the malicious actions of some cosmic betrayer. Where one individual may see a virus evolving as a result of random chance, others will choose to find blame in an inherent universal evil. Regardless of the mechanism by which these threats emerge, it is apparent that there is no greater societal threat at this moment than a particular individual who represents a larger societal construct.