Lawsuit: Pending ToadKing v. Yeah_Jaron & Wahhfff [2026] DCR 30

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Yeah_Jaron
Wahhfff
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

On 15 March 2026, at approximately 22:10 UTC, Defendants Yeah_Jaron and Wahhfff approached the Plaintiff just outside Aventura Spawn, and deliberately pointed Miniguns directly at him for approximately one minute. This conduct took place in public, in full view of any player within 30 blocks of Aventura Spawn. The weapons directed at him were large, high-capacity restricted firearms that the Defendants had no licence to possess. The Plaintiff was placed in a position of danger and subjected to conduct that caused harassment, alarm, and distress.

I. PARTIES​

1. ToadKing
2. Yeah_Jaron
3. Wahhfff

​

II. FACTS​

1. On 15 March 2026, at approximately 22:00 UTC, the Plaintiff, ToadKing, was present near Aventura Spawn by the lake.
2. The Plaintiff is notably smaller than the average player, significantly below standard player height. (P-001, P-006)
3. Defendants Yeah_Jaron and Wahhfff were present at the same location and were engaging in fishing before the Plaintiff's arrival.
4. The Plaintiff, finding it a pleasant evening, sat nearby to watch the Defendants fish.
5. The Plaintiff posed no threat and engaged in no provocative conduct.
6. At approximately 22:10 UTC, the Defendants then jointly and deliberately approached the Plaintiff and pointed Miniguns directly at him. This conduct was sustained for approximately one minute. (P-001)
7. The Minigun is a large, high-capacity weapon. The weapon itself is substantially larger than the Plaintiff. (P-001, P-002)
8. The Defendants' weapons were directed at or near the Plaintiff, at extremely close range. (P-001)
9. The Minigun is chambered in 5.56 NATO. Under Section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Firearms Licensing Act, any firearm chambered in 5.56 NATO is classified as a Restricted Firearm. (P-003)
10. At the time of the incident, Yeah_Jaron held only a Drivers licence and no firearms licence of any kind. (P-004)
11. At the time of the incident, Wahhfff held only a Drivers licence and no firearms licence of any kind. (P-005)
12. Neither Defendant had any lawful authority to possess, handle, or brandish the Miniguns at any point during this incident.
13. The entire incident occurred in public, in full view of any player within 30 blocks of Aventura Spawn.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Assault​

The Criminal Code Act (CCA), Part IV, Section 1 provides:

1 - Assault
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 1 Penalty Units; 5 min imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) intentionally hits another player, causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts; or
(b) places another player in a position of danger, including but not limited to pointing a weapon at them.
Relevant Law:

The statutory language is unambiguous. Pointing a weapon at a player is the Act's sole primary example of placing that player in a position of danger. Each Defendant pointed a Minigun at the Plaintiff for approximately one minute. This offence is individually and plainly established against each Defendant.

The Plaintiff's smaller stature is a relevant circumstance going to the gravity of the harm. The Minigun is physically larger than the Plaintiff himself. When pointed at the Plaintiff at close range, the weapons were directed at or near his head or upper body. The Plaintiff was seated, smaller than both Defendants, and surrounded by two individuals directing oversized restricted firearms at him simultaneously. The Plaintiff was therefore placed in a position of danger before any and all witnesses, including poor Larry the Fisher, who happened to be present.

The Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) Part II, Section 6(1)(b) confirms that no criminal conviction is required:

6. Legal Principles

(1) Standard of Proof
(a) The standard of proof for civil cases is defined elsewhere in law.
(b) Conviction of a criminal offence is not required for a civil violation to be established; however, a criminal conviction may be used as evidence in civil proceedings.

The Plaintiff establishes this offence on the balance of probabilities against both Defendants.

​

2. Disturbing the Peace​

The CCA, Part V, Section 1 provides:

1 - Disturbing the Peace
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.
Relevant Law:

The Defendants' conduct satisfies each element of this offence.

The conduct was disorderly - two individuals approaching a seated, smaller player and directing large, restricted firearms at them for approximately one minute in a public space is not ordinary behaviour. It was targeted, sustained, coordinated, and directed at a specific individual.

The conduct caused the Plaintiff alarm and distress. As previously noted, the Miniguns pointed at him were weapons substantially larger than himself, and were thrust in his face at considerable close range. He was surrounded by two individuals acting in conjunction, both with these large weapons. Any reasonable person in the Plaintiff's position would experience alarm and distress. The public setting amplifies this: the conduct took place in a setting where any player within distance could observe it, meaning the Plaintiff was subjected to this targeting openly to anyone present at Aventura Spawn.

​

3. Unauthorised Firearms Possession​

The CCA, Part IV, Section 9 provides:

9 - Unauthorised Firearms Possession
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 10 Penalty Units; 10 minutes imprisonment; Confiscation of unlicensed firearms
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) possesses a firearm without holding a valid firearms license.
Relevant law: Act of Congress - Firearms Licensing Act

Yeah_Jaron held no firearms licence at the time of the incident. (P-002) Wahhfff held no firearms licence at the time of the incident. (P-003) Each possessed a Minigun without any valid licence. This offence is individually established against each Defendant.

The unlicensed possession is not a peripheral matter, but rather, it is central to the character of the Defendants' conduct. The Plaintiff was placed in a position of danger by individuals who had no lawful right to be in possession of those weapons at all. This was not a simple case of a licensed individual misusing a firearm. Both Defendants operated entirely outside the legal framework governing firearms from the outset.

​

4. Punitive Damages​

The RCCA Part III, Section 3(2)(a) provides:

3. Punitive Damages
(2) Award:
(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.

Section 3(2)(b) defines outrageous conduct:

(b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:

The following are expressly satisfied:

(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss

The Defendants deliberately approached the Plaintiff and directed weapons at him. This was not accidental but a coordinated act by two individuals.

(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person

Pointing a firearm at a person is self-evidently likely to cause harm or serious distress.

(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur

Both Defendants were in unlicensed possession of restricted firearms throughout the incident. They had no lawful right to carry these weapons. Their decision to obtain, carry, and brandish unlicensed restricted firearms in a public space at another player reflects reckless indifference to the law and to the safety of others.

The following features of this case, in combination, establish that the conduct was outrageous within the meaning of Section 3(2)(b):

First, coordination. This was not a single person acting impulsively. Two Defendants approached the Plaintiff together and directed their weapons at him simultaneously and in concert. Coordinated targeting of an individual is deliberate by nature.

Second, actual weapons. In ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, this Court held that the mere act of stepping on the Plaintiff was not inherently disorderly on its own - the Disturbing the Peace finding in that case rested on verbal conduct. Here, the instruments of the Defendants' conduct were not words, nor physical contact, but firearms - the very instruments that the CCA itself identifies, by name, as being capable of placing a person in a position of danger. If words alone sufficed to establish Disturbing the Peace in [2025] DCR 82, conduct involving actual weapons directed at the Plaintiff from close range represents a qualitative and significant departure upward from that threshold.

Third, unlicensed restricted firearms. Neither Defendant held any firearms licence. The Minigun is classified as a Restricted Firearm under the Firearms Licensing Act. Both Defendants were therefore in breach of the firearms licensing regime from the moment they picked up those weapons. Brandishing unlicensed restricted firearms at a bystander in a public space is a wilful and compounded disregard for the legal framework designed to protect the public from precisely this kind of conduct.

Fourth, the public setting. The conduct took place in full view of any player within 30 blocks of Aventura Spawn. The Defendants chose to direct weapons at the Plaintiff in a location where the impact and visibility of their conduct was maximised.

Fifth, the vulnerability of the Plaintiff. The Defendants directed weapons larger than the Plaintiff himself at him from close range. The size disparity between the Plaintiff and the weapons being wielded against him was stark and plain to see. Beyond size, the Plaintiff has significantly less health than the average player - 4 hearts compared to the standard 10. (P-006) A standard player can sustain considerably more damage before death; the Plaintiff cannot. Given the Plaintiff's reduced health pool, the Defendants could have killed the Plaintiff near-instantly, with no chance for the Plaintiff to escape or call out for help. The position of danger the Defendants created was therefore not merely theoretical - the Plaintiff was, by reason of his reduced health, acutely and measurably more vulnerable to lethal harm from the weapons being pointed at him than any average player would have been. The Defendants' conduct targeted an individual in circumstances that made the position of danger exceptionally acute.

Taken together, these five features - coordination, actual weapons, unlicensed restricted firearms, public setting, and the vulnerability of the Plaintiff - constitute conduct that is wilful, reckless, and reflects a fundamental disregard for the rights and safety of others. A punitive award of $10,000 per Defendant is proportionate to the seriousness and deliberateness of the conduct and serves the deterrent purpose of punitive damages.

​

5. Nominal Damages​

The RCCA Part III, Section 4 provides:

4. Nominal Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Nominal damages are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages.

(2) Award:
(a) Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500.

(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) There shall be no diminution of award or defences to nominal damages.

Three distinct causes of action have been established against each Defendant on the balance of probabilities. The legal causes of action are made out. Where the Court does not grant punitive damages, nominal damages are warranted in recognition that the Defendants' conduct constituted multiple violations of the Criminal Code Act directed at the Plaintiff in a public setting.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $10,000 Punitive Damages from Yeah_Jaron, pursuant to RCCA Part III, Section 3, for their outrageous conduct.

2. $10,000 Punitive Damages from Wahhfff, pursuant to RCCA Part III, Section 3, for their outrageous conduct.

3. In the alternative, $7,500 Nominal Damages in recognition of the established causes of action.

4. 30% Legal fees as provided under RCCA Part III, Section 7.

5. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Act of Congress Thread 'Firearms Licensing Act'

Jan 15, 2026

CONGRESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
​

---

A BILL TO

Establish Regulations for Firearms Licenses




​

---

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:


​

PART I — PRELIMINARIES

1. Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the ‘Firearms Licensing Act’

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3)...

• Kaiserin_
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Breach of Peace Law

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

​

WITNESSES​

1. Yeah_Jaron
2. Wahhfff
3. Larry the Fisher (Plaintiff has the right to call NPCs as witnesses, see [2025] FCR 64)

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 17th day of March 2026

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Yeah_Jaron @Wahhfff, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ToadKing v. Yeah_Jaron & Wahhfff [2026] DCR 30

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[CaptAndrewMahn]

Present, your Honour

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[dearev]

Present, your Honour

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 77236View attachment 77235

Present answer within 48h

 

[CaptAndrewMahn]

Answer to Complaint

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

ToadKing
Plaintiff

v.

Yeah_Jaron & Wahhfff
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that on 15 March 2026, at approximately 22:00 UTC, the Plaintiff, ToadKing, was present near Aventura Spawn by the lake.
2. AFFIRM that the Plaintiff is notably smaller than the average player, significantly below standard player height.
3. AFFIRM that defendants Yeah_Jaron and Wahhfff were present at the same location and were engaging in fishing before the Plaintiff's arrival.
4. AFFIRM that the Plaintiff, finding it a pleasant evening, sat nearby to watch the Defendants fish.
5. DENY that the Plaintiff posed no threat and engaged in no provocative conduct.
6. DENY that at approximately 22:10 UTC, the Defendants then jointly and deliberately approached the Plaintiff and pointed Miniguns directly at him. This conduct was sustained for approximately one minute.
7. AFFIRM that the Minigun is a large, high-capacity weapon. The weapon itself is substantially larger than the Plaintiff
8. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that the Defendants' weapons were directed at or near the Plaintiff, at extremely close range
9. AFFIRM that the Minigun is chambered in 5.56 NATO. Under Section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Firearms Licensing Act, any firearm chambered in 5.56 NATO is classified as a Restricted Firearm.
10. AFFIRM that at the time of the incident, Yeah_Jaron held only a Drivers licence and no firearms licence of any kind.
11. AFFIRM that at the time of the incident, Wahhfff held only a Drivers licence and no firearms licence of any kind.
12. AFFIRM that Neither Defendant had any lawful authority to possess, handle, or brandish the Miniguns at any point during this incident.
13. AFFIRM that The entire incident occurred in public, in full view of any player within 30 blocks of Aventura Spawn.

II. DEFENCES
1. The RCCA Part III, Section 3(2)(a) provides that punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.. Despite the Plaintiff’s best attempts at making it appear so, the defendants’ actions were in no way outrageous. In fact, this fails, on every required element, to meet the legal threshold for outrageous conduct

1. The claim that the defendants intended to cause harm or loss is disproven in a recording of the incident (D-001) wherein it is shown that at the beginning of the interaction between the Defendants and the Plaintiff, neither Defendant was brandishing a weapon. Defendant Yeah_Jaron then took out a minigun for approximately 10 seconds HOWEVER it is important to note that he had a rational reason to fear the Plaintiff, as discussed in Defence 2. Yeah_Jaron then put it away, replacing the item in his hand with a fishing rod. Defendant Wahhfff then momentarily took out a minigun for approximately 3 seconds, before putting it away - clearly not an act intending threat, more than likely a simple coincidence while scrolling through his inventory. The Plaintiff then made a comment regarding the Defendants’ weapons, after which both Defendants took out their miniguns, as at the moment it became a subject of the conversation. The conversation then moved onto other subjects, and the Defendants simply did not change inventory slots, until the conversation concluded. The topics of conversation did not involve threats to harm the Plaintiff, so there is little basis to assume such intentions.
2. The claim that the defendants acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person is disproven once again by the recording (D-001) as it is seen that the Defendants faced the plaintiff during their conversation whilst holding weapons. This, I believe, should not constitute ‘pointing a gun’, as the guns were relevant to the topic at hand, at least momentarily, and there is the simple issue that this server does not have the mechanics to allow the formality of eye contact while maintaining proper muzzle discipline - if one faces someone while holding a weapon, they unfortunately must have the appearance of aiming at them. It is seen that Yeah_Jaron, near the end of the video, even ‘points his gun’ at Wahhfff as he directs speech at him, showing that clearly it was a simple issue born out of inability to ‘turn on safety’ with these weapons. As such, what is described as “aiming” is, in reality, an unavoidable visual artifact of player orientation within the game.
3. The claim that the defendants acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur is based on the fact that both Defendants are not licensed to carry firearms. The Plaintiff claims that the defendants obtaining, carrying, and brandishing the weapons reflects some indifference to the law. However, they do not reflect that, rather, it was a simple misunderstanding of the law on the Defendants’ part. The two of them possess the Armourer profession (D-002 and D-003), and both of them would be capable of crafting such weapons. The Department of Education has yet to restrict the Armourer exam to Firearm license holders, and so the defendants made the reasonable assumption that given a government agency allowed them to craft such items, it is legal for them to possess them. Where a regulatory framework permits the creation and handling of an item through official channels, it is reasonable for participants in that system to infer that such handling is lawful or at least conditionally permitted. Any failure to comply with licensing requirements in such a context is more appropriately characterized as a regulatory misunderstanding rather than wilful or reckless disregard for the law. This alleviates the blameworthiness of obtaining and carrying the firearms, while 1a and 1b refute the claim that they were brandishing the weapons.

2. The plaintiff claims he posed no threat and engaged in no provocative conduct. The defense denies this, and believes that his questionable conduct in fact contributed to numerous actions taken by the Defendants.

1. At the beginning of the recording of the incident (D-001) while defendant Yeah_Jaron is fishing, he involuntarily picks up a dropped item renamed “Eat Me”, with the appearance and description of Fluff. As per the Fluff Regulation Act, Fluff is now an illicit substance, and as such, Yeah_Jaron promptly disposed of it into the sea, before looking behind him and seeing the Plaintiff and Larry the Fisher. This led to Yeah_Jaron reasonably presuming that the Plaintiff had thrown the item, as Larry the Fisher, as an NPC, is unlikely to be giving out illicit substances. This led to both Defendants beginning their interaction with the Plaintiff, during which, on video, the Plaintiff throws more of the item to Defendant Wahhfff. While the defense acknowledges that, at the time, the Fluff Regulation Act’s transitional term giving citizens 14 days to hand in any Fluff in their possession without fear of prosecution, the existence of such a provision does not render the Plaintiff’s conduct irrelevant. The repeated distribution or disposal of items resembling illicit substances in close proximity to other players remains unusual and reasonably capable of causing concern. The Defendants’ subsequent conduct must therefore be viewed in the context of this interaction, rather than as an unprovoked or arbitrary act.
2. This incident was not the first time the Defendants and the Plaintiff had seen each other. In the beginning of the recording of the incident (D-001) the Defendants, in a private voice chat with its contents documented in the recording, defendant Wahhfff states that he had seen the Plaintiff earlier, at MissWatson221b’s ‘place’. With that in mind, they reasonably perceived the Plaintiff’s presence as repeated and unexplained. This, along with the Plaintiff’s behaviour described in 2a, gives further context to the Defendants’ actions.
3. The defendants’ fear of the plaintiff during this incident is further justified with the context of another incident that occurred mere minutes later, documented in another recording (D-004). At that point in time, the fishing area had become a bit more crowded, as now MissWatson221b and StateTuna7906 are present. The defendants Wahhfff and Yeah_Jaron are fishing while conversing, when suddenly the Plaintiff fires a loud explosive weapon (its exact model not clearly shown in the video) in the direction of MissWatson221b, the projectile missing and detonating upon contact with the ferry behind her. The Plaintiff is then seen fleeing from the scene before the recording ends. This further contextualizes the incident, and proves that the defendants’ earlier unease was not irrational.

Spoiler: D-001

CourtCaseEvidence2.mp4

drive.google.com

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

CourtCaseEvidenceRPG.mp4

drive.google.com

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 20th day of March 2026

 

[CaptAndrewMahn]

Additionally, the defense would like to invoke the option of an in-game trial. The Defendants would like for one to be held, should the Plaintiff agree to it.

 

[dearev]

Additionally, the defense would like to invoke the option of an in-game trial. The Defendants would like for one to be held, should the Plaintiff agree to it.

Does the plaintiff concur?

 

[ToadKing]

Does the plaintiff concur?

I believe I can muster enough courage to face these perpetrators in in-game court.

 

[dearev]

I believe I can muster enough courage to face these perpetrators in in-game court.

An ingame trial will be conducted in this case. According to court rules and procedures. Discovery shall now begin in forums lasting 5 days.
Discovery may be ended early if both parties concur.
During discovery a sidebar will be created so a date and time can be arranged for the ingame trial.

 

[ToadKing]

5. DENY that the Plaintiff posed no threat and engaged in no provocative conduct.

it is important to note that he had a rational reason to fear the Plaintiff, as discussed in Defence 2.

The defendants’ fear of the plaintiff during this incident is further justified with the context of another incident that occurred mere minutes later, documented in another recording (D-004). At that point in time, the fishing area had become a bit more crowded, as now MissWatson221b and StateTuna7906 are present. The defendants Wahhfff and Yeah_Jaron are fishing while conversing, when suddenly the Plaintiff fires a loud explosive weapon (its exact model not clearly shown in the video) in the direction of MissWatson221b, the projectile missing and detonating upon contact with the ferry behind her. The Plaintiff is then seen fleeing from the scene before the recording ends. This further contextualizes the incident, and proves that the defendants’ earlier unease was not irrational.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,

The Defence references a separate incident occurring after the initial incident at the centre of this case, supported by video evidence D-004. The Defence contends that the Plaintiff's conduct in that subsequent incident "further contextualizes" the Defendants' actions and "proves that the defendants' earlier unease was not irrational."

This is improper. Events that occurred after the incident cannot retroactively justify conduct that had already taken place. The legal question before this Court is whether the Defendants' conduct at the time of the incident was lawful. What the Plaintiff did later on is entirely irrelevant to that question. The Defendants could not have known about subsequent future events when they acted, and those events therefore have no bearing on their state of mind, intent, or justification at the relevant time.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Strike the highlighted text of Defence's Answer in their entirety; and
2. Exclude D-004 from these proceedings.

At the beginning of the recording of the incident (D-001) while defendant Yeah_Jaron is fishing, he involuntarily picks up a dropped item renamed “Eat Me”, with the appearance and description of Fluff. As per the Fluff Regulation Act, Fluff is now an illicit substance, and as such, Yeah_Jaron promptly disposed of it into the sea, before looking behind him and seeing the Plaintiff and Larry the Fisher. This led to Yeah_Jaron reasonably presuming that the Plaintiff had thrown the item, as Larry the Fisher, as an NPC, is unlikely to be giving out illicit substances. This led to both Defendants beginning their interaction with the Plaintiff, during which, on video, the Plaintiff throws more of the item to Defendant Wahhfff. While the defense acknowledges that, at the time, the Fluff Regulation Act’s transitional term giving citizens 14 days to hand in any Fluff in their possession without fear of prosecution, the existence of such a provision does not render the Plaintiff’s conduct irrelevant. The repeated distribution or disposal of items resembling illicit substances in close proximity to other players remains unusual and reasonably capable of causing concern. The Defendants’ subsequent conduct must therefore be viewed in the context of this interaction, rather than as an unprovoked or arbitrary act.

This, along with the Plaintiff’s behaviour described in 2a, gives further context to the Defendants’ actions.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honour,

The Defence characterises the Plaintiff's distribution of Fluff as conduct involving an "illicit substance", thereby suggesting the Plaintiff's behaviour was provocative and that the Defendants' response was therefore reasonable. This is inappropriate on two grounds.

First, the events of this case occurred on 15 March 2026. The cited Fluff Regulation Act, which amended the Criminal Terminology Act to designate "Fluff" as an "illicit substance", received presidential assent and passed into law on 18 March 2026 - three days after the incident. At the time of the incident, Fluff was entirely legal to possess and distribute. The Defence cannot use the Plaintiff's lawful conduct to justify the Defendants pointing weapons at him. Fluff's legality at the time of the incident has no bearing on the legal question before this Court and should be disregarded in its entirety.

Second, the Defence treats Fluff as an illicit substance at the time of the incident as though this were an established fact. It was not. A bill awaiting presidential assent is not law. The President retains the constitutional power to veto legislation under Part III, Section 24(3) of the Constitution, and there was no guarantee of assent. The Fluff Regulation Act was not in force on 15 March 2026.

The CCA, Part I, Section 6(3) provides:

(3) Ex-Post Facto
(a) Individuals cannot be subject to punishments for criminal actions if it was not illegal at the time it was committed.
(b) Any legislation that has passed after a lawsuit has been filed, will not be considered in that lawsuit, nor in the appeal of that lawsuit and the case that takes place if the appeal for that lawsuit has been accepted.
(c) Congress may override Ex-Post Facto through a bill, however such a bill will require supermajority in both chambers.

The Defence is inviting this Court to judge the Plaintiff's conduct against a legal standard that did not exist on 15 March 2026. That is what the Ex Post Facto principle prohibits. The Plaintiff distributed a legal item. The Defence's attempt to retrospectively characterise that conduct as suspicious or provocative by reference to subsequently enacted legislation is improper, and should "not be considered in [this] lawsuit," under CCA Part I, Section 6(3)(b).

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Strike the highlighted text of Defence's Answer in their entirety; and
2. Exclude any argument premised on the Fluff Regulation Act as it was not in force at the time of the incident.

 

[ToadKing]

Discovery may be ended early if both parties concur.

The Plaintiff is content to end Discovery early.

 

[dearev]

The Plaintiff is content to end Discovery early.

Does defense concur?

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,

The Defence references a separate incident occurring after the initial incident at the centre of this case, supported by video evidence D-004. The Defence contends that the Plaintiff's conduct in that subsequent incident "further contextualizes" the Defendants' actions and "proves that the defendants' earlier unease was not irrational."

This is improper. Events that occurred after the incident cannot retroactively justify conduct that had already taken place. The legal question before this Court is whether the Defendants' conduct at the time of the incident was lawful. What the Plaintiff did later on is entirely irrelevant to that question. The Defendants could not have known about subsequent future events when they acted, and those events therefore have no bearing on their state of mind, intent, or justification at the relevant time.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Strike the highlighted text of Defence's Answer in their entirety; and
2. Exclude D-004 from these proceedings.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honour,

The Defence characterises the Plaintiff's distribution of Fluff as conduct involving an "illicit substance", thereby suggesting the Plaintiff's behaviour was provocative and that the Defendants' response was therefore reasonable. This is inappropriate on two grounds.

First, the events of this case occurred on 15 March 2026. The cited Fluff Regulation Act, which amended the Criminal Terminology Act to designate "Fluff" as an "illicit substance", received presidential assent and passed into law on 18 March 2026 - three days after the incident. At the time of the incident, Fluff was entirely legal to possess and distribute. The Defence cannot use the Plaintiff's lawful conduct to justify the Defendants pointing weapons at him. Fluff's legality at the time of the incident has no bearing on the legal question before this Court and should be disregarded in its entirety.

Second, the Defence treats Fluff as an illicit substance at the time of the incident as though this were an established fact. It was not. A bill awaiting presidential assent is not law. The President retains the constitutional power to veto legislation under Part III, Section 24(3) of the Constitution, and there was no guarantee of assent. The Fluff Regulation Act was not in force on 15 March 2026.

The CCA, Part I, Section 6(3) provides:


The Defence is inviting this Court to judge the Plaintiff's conduct against a legal standard that did not exist on 15 March 2026. That is what the Ex Post Facto principle prohibits. The Plaintiff distributed a legal item. The Defence's attempt to retrospectively characterise that conduct as suspicious or provocative by reference to subsequently enacted legislation is improper, and should "not be considered in [this] lawsuit," under CCA Part I, Section 6(3)(b).

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Strike the highlighted text of Defence's Answer in their entirety; and
2. Exclude any argument premised on the Fluff Regulation Act as it was not in force at the time of the incident.

defense may respond within 48 hours.