Lawsuit: Pending emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

[xXTheoryXx]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


CIVIL ACTION


emmythegremlin (Represented by xXTheoryXx, Talion and Partners LLC), Plaintiff
v.
roy405, Defendant

---

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

---

On February 20, 2026, while lawfully present on private property and actively engaged in writing a 22-page literary work commissioned for a commercial library, the Defendant unlawfully murdered the Plaintiff at approximately 11:56 BRT. The murder caused the permanent and total destruction of approximately five pages of unsaved literary work — pages 7 through 12 of the in-progress manuscript — which formed part of a work valued at approximately 170 DC$ and represented 15 minutes of active creative writing. The Defendant subsequently bragged publicly about the killing, dismissed the Plaintiff's legal rights, and threatened retaliatory litigation. The property owner independently characterised the Defendant's conduct as materially damaging to his business productivity. This action seeks compensation for the harm caused.

---

I. PARTIES


Plaintiff: emmythegremlin
Defendant: roy405

---

II. FACTS

1. On February 20, 2026, at approximately 11:56 BRT, the Defendant, roy405, murdered the Plaintiff, emmythegremlin, as confirmed by server kill notification and death screen. (P-001, P-002)
2. At the time of the murder, the Plaintiff was lawfully present in a private room on the property of .CaldironJa1 (plot c135), with the express permission, knowledge, and active involvement of the property owner. .CaldironJa1 had personally invited the Plaintiff to his office, assigned her a workspace in the room adjacent to his, and was actively engaged with the literary work being produced. (P-007)
3. The Plaintiff was engaged in writing "A General History of Redmont (Vol. 1)," a 22-page original literary work commissioned for .CaldironJa1's commercial library and listed for sale at approximately 170 DC$. The Plaintiff publicly shared her writing progress in the server's Discord #general channel at 09:50 BRT, posting a photograph of an in-progress draft of the book showing "Page 3 of 3, Part I: Prolegomena and Prehistory," and announced her planned research interviews at 10:51 BRT. The Plaintiff actively developed the work across the session, including conducting research using source materials held in .CaldironJa1's locked library. (P-003, P-004, P-005)
4. The Plaintiff worked actively for approximately 15 minutes writing the in-progress manuscript immediately prior to the murder. At the time of the killing, the Plaintiff was on page 12 of the work, having begun the session's unsaved writing from page 7 — producing approximately five pages of dense original text, beginning with "Herodotus wrote both to preserve history and to explain it..." and ending mid-composition at "I will treat Redmont..." This unsaved content, spanning pages 7 through 12, was permanently destroyed by the murder. (P-003; Plaintiff's statement)
5. The literary work was being produced for commercial purposes. The Plaintiff stated publicly in global chat at 12:14 BRT: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business." The property owner .CaldironJa1 independently confirmed the commercial nature of the work in global chat at 12:11 BRT, stating: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity." (P-006, P-010)
6. In DemocracyCraft, items are retained on death as keepInventory is active. The Defendant himself confirmed this at 12:06 BRT, stating "keep inventory is on lol." The Plaintiff immediately responded: "keep inventory doesn't I love DemocracyCraft!ing save books." Accordingly, the sole property loss resulting from the murder was the approximately five pages of unsaved in-progress manuscript being actively composed at the time of the killing — pages 7 through 12 of the 22-page work. (P-006)
7. The approximately five pages of unsaved literary work were permanently and totally destroyed. The Plaintiff confirmed this loss in global chat immediately following the murder: "i lost five full pages of written stuff." This loss was independently corroborated by Hunter IamJeb_, who stated: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy." (P-006)
8. The Defendant, upon being confronted in global chat, acknowledged the killing and systematically dismissed the Plaintiff's legal rights. The Defendant stated: "murder isnt suable," "u cant sue for that lol," and "if she sues me ill countersue for triple that lol." The Defendant further stated: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing," an admission of awareness of the legal implications of the book's destruction. When the Plaintiff stated she had a book in hand as visible evidence, the Defendant responded: "means nothing." (P-006)
9. Earlier on the same date, the Defendant had publicly identified himself as the server's most notorious murderer when directly asked by another player. At approximately 10:40 BRT, approximately 76 minutes before the murder, the Defendant admitted he was managing his murder cooldown in order to commit further killings, stating he was "waiting for my murder limit thing." (P-006)
10. Following the murder, the property owner .CaldironJa1 issued a formal written ban notice to the Defendant at 12:11 BRT: "You are banned from plot c135 and from causing harm, disruption, or distress to anyone here. Further interference will be treated as material damage to my business, and legal action may follow." (P-009)
11. The Defendant, appearing aware that his conduct would result in a fine, stated in global chat: "if it makes u feel better ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u," acknowledging both the killing and the likelihood of criminal consequences. (P-006)

---

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


1.MurderCriminal Code Act, Part IV §3; Civil damages pursuant to CCA Part I §6(1)

The Defendant unlawfully murdered the Plaintiff. Server kill logs and death screen screenshot confirm the act to the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities). Per CCA Part I §6(1)(a-b), crimes may be used to establish civil liability without a criminal conviction. The Defendant is civilly liable for all damages flowing from this unlawful killing.


2. Destruction of Literary Property
Compensatory Damages, LDA §4(2)(a) RCCA Part III §2 (Compensatory Damages)
The Plaintiff's literary work constitutes an original creative work automatically protected under IPA §3 from the moment of creation. The Defendant's murder caused the permanent and total destruction of approximately five pages of unsaved in-progress manuscript — pages 7 through 12 of "A General History of Redmont (Vol. 1)" — the only property loss resulting from the killing, as DemocracyCraft's keepInventory mechanic confirmed by the Defendant himself preserves all other items on death. The destroyed content formed a substantial portion of a commissioned literary work listed for sale at 170 DC$ in .CaldironJa1's commercial library. The Plaintiff claims compensatory damages for harm to property and harm to earning capacity under RCCA Part III §2.

3. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
Legal Damages Act §7(1)(a)(IV) RCCA Part III §5 (Consequential Damages / Loss of Enjoyment)
The Plaintiff was present on the server on February 20, 2026, for the specific and documented purpose of writing literary works, as evidenced by her public Discord announcements at 09:50 and 10:51 BRT and the entirety of her server session being devoted to research, collaboration, and writing. The Defendant's murder directly and completely destroyed the Plaintiff's ability to engage in the activity for which she was present on the server. The Plaintiff is entitled to consequential damages for loss of enjoyment under RCCA Part III §5.

4. Punitive Damages
Legal Damages Act §5(1)(a) RCCA Part III §3 (Punitive Damages)
The Defendant's conduct was outrageous and warrants punitive damages. The pattern includes: (a) entering a private room on another player's property without authorisation; (b) murdering the Plaintiff while she was visibly holding a book and actively engaged in creative work; (c) causing the permanent destruction of approximately five pages of unsaved commissioned literary work; (d) publicly mocking the Plaintiff's legal rights and dismissing her loss as meaningless; (e) threatening a bad-faith countersuit; (f) self-identifying as the server's most notorious murderer and admitting to managing his murder cooldown 76 minutes before the killing; and (g) stating "book in hand means nothing," confirming he saw the evidence of her work and chose to disregard it. The property owner independently and contemporaneously characterised the conduct as materially damaging to his business productivity.

5. Nominal Damages
Legal Damages Act §6 RCCA Part III §4 (Nominal Damages)
In the alternative, should the Court find that specific damages have not been sufficiently proven, the Plaintiff requests nominal damages of $7,500 as recognition that a legal wrong was committed.

6. Civil Trespass
RCCA Part VII §3
The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.

---

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:


(a) $5,000 in compensatory damages for the destruction of copyrighted literary property and harm to earning capacity (LDA §4(2)(a) RCCA Part III §2);
(b) $7,500 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment in Redmont (LDA §7(1)(a)(IV) RCCA Part III §5);
(c) $15,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's outrageous conduct (LDA §5(1)(a) RCCA Part III §3);
(d) In the alternative, $7,500 in nominal damages (LDA §6 RCCA Part III §4); and
(e) Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Talion and Partners LLC (T&P) (LDA §9 RCCA Part III §7).


Total primary claim: $27,500 plus $8,250 in legal fees.

---

V. EVIDENCE

---

Spoiler: P-001 — Kill Notification Log Entries (latest.txt)

Source: latest.txt
Lines: [11:56:40] and [11:56:41]

[11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!
[11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities

Spoiler: P-002 — Death Screen Screenshot

File: 1771796058705_image.png

The in-game red death screen confirming the murder event.

View attachment 1771796058705

Spoiler: P-003 — Discord Screenshot (09:50 BRT)

File: Book33.png

Shows:
"Page 3 of 3, Part I: Prolegomena and Prehistory"
Sign and Done buttons visible, confirming an open, unsigned, unsaved book in active use.

Spoiler: P-004 — Discord Screenshot (10:51 BRT)

File: teeheeend.png

Message:
"alr first person i need to talk to / end / teehee,"

Confirming active research and interview planning.

Spoiler: P-005 — Google Document (A General History of Redmont, Vol. 1)

Title: A General History of Redmont (Vol. 1)

This document contains creation and edit timestamps establishing authorship, ongoing development, and 22-page scope prior to the murder event.

View Google Document (P-005)

Spoiler: P-006 — Minecraft Client Log (latest.txt Full Chat)

Full Post-Murder Global Chat Excerpts

[12:03:09] Emmy: because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything
[12:04:04] Emmy: you're lucky i had a save on a google doc
[12:06:08] Roy: keep inventory is on lol
[12:06:47] Emmy: keep inventory doesn't I love DemocracyCraft!ing save books
[12:08:15] Emmy: i lost five full pages of written stuff
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy
[12:11:05] Roy: i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing
[12:14:10] Emmy: i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business
[12:15:00] Emmy: book in hand
[12:15:01] Roy: means nothing
[12:16:16] Roy: ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u.

Spoiler: P-007 — Earlier Session Log (2026-02-20-3.txt)

File: 2026-02-20-3.txt

[10:55:32] Caldiron invites Emmy to his office
[10:56:27] the room next to yours
[10:42:05] Emmy copying from Google Doc into game
[10:45:22 - 10:46:14] Caldiron praising the work as "like an academic article" and "babado"
[10:56:52] System: This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1

Spoiler: P-008 — Lawyer Retention Confirmation

File: Consent.png

Discord screenshot showing xXTheoryXx requesting formal retention confirmation and emmythegremlin replying "yes!" at 15:50 BRT on February 20, 2026.

Spoiler: P-009 — Formal Ban Notice

File: Ban notice.png

You are banned from plot c135 and from causing harm, disruption, or distress to anyone here. Further interference will be treated as material damage to my business, and legal action may follow.

Spoiler: P-010 — Business Productivity Statement

Source: latest.txt
Line: [12:11:56]

It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity.

---

VI. WITNESSES


.CaldironJa1, Property Owner. Will testify to: (a) the Plaintiff's authorised presence and assigned workspace on plot c135; (b) his active knowledge of, involvement in, and praise for the literary work being produced; (c) the commercial purpose of the work for his library at approximately 170 DC$ sale price; (d) authorship of the ban notice (P-009); and (e) his characterisation of the harm as material damage to his business productivity (P-010).


IamJeb_, Neutral Third-Party Witness. Will testify to: (a) independently observing and publicly stating that the Defendant killed someone and that it resulted in the removal of five pages of written work; and (b) witnessing the post-murder global chat exchange including the Defendant's admissions and dismissal of the Plaintiff's legal rights in real time.

---

By making this submission, I affirm that I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.


DATED: This 22nd day of February, 2026

Respectfully submitted,


xXTheoryXx Junior Associate, Talion and Partners LLC
On behalf of emmythegremlin, Plaintiff

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@roy405 , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

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.

 

[roy405]

here

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The Defendant is afforded a further 48 hours to file an answer to complaint.

Do inform the court if you are unable to meet the deadline or encounter any other complications the court may be able to resolve.

 

[roy405]

since i don't have discord, i'm unable to contact legal companies and find it difficult to answer this case. thus i am requesting a Public Defender

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

since i don't have discord, i'm unable to contact legal companies and find it difficult to answer this case. thus i am requesting a Public Defender

One shall be requested on your behalf. Case is in recess pending appointment of a public defender or acquisition of legal counsel by the Defendant, whichever should come first.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Mornin' your Honor,
I am now present for the PDs

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Mornin' your Honor,
I am now present for the PDs

You have 72 hours to familiarize yourself with the case and file an answer to complaint.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Answer to Complaint

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

emmythegremlin
Plaintiff

v.

roy405
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Defendant admits that the Plaintiff died in-game but disputes that this resulted in any actionable property loss caused by the Defendant.

2. Defendant denies that any property belonging to the Plaintiff was destroyed or taken by the Defendant.

3. Defendant denies responsibility for the alleged loss of written content. Any alleged loss of unsaved text was not property physically held or destroyed by the Defendant.

4. Defendant denies that the alleged five pages of writing constitute property that was destroyed by the Defendant, and denies that the Defendant had any knowledge such writing existed.

5. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff’s claimed damages are valid or that the Defendant is liable for them.

II. DEFENCES

1. No Property Loss Caused by Defendant, Defendant did not destroy, steal, or otherwise interfere with any property belonging to the Plaintiff.

2. Game Mechanics, Any alleged loss resulted from normal gameplay mechanics rather than any direct action by the Defendant to destroy property if it was destroyed.

3. Lack of Knowledge, Defendant had no knowledge that the Plaintiff allegedly had unsaved written content at the time and it was not his action that any was lost.

4. Speculative Damages, The value of the alleged lost writing is speculative and unsupported and not proven to be lost.

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 8th day of March 2026

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor will this case resume?

 

[Smallfries]

This message serves as a notice to the parties that Magistrate Eksplosive has resigned. A new presiding officer will be assigned.

 

[Franciscus]

Howdy folks.

I will hop in as the new presiding officer on this case.

Discovery begins now and will last for 5 days (120 hours) from the posting of this message.

@Babysoga4real @xXTheoryXx

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves that the Court grant leave to amend the Complaint to correct erroneous statutory citations and to add one additional cause of action, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The original Complaint, filed 22 February 2026, cited the Legal Damages Act (LDA) throughout Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, and in the Prayer for Relief.

2. Upon review of the Complaint, counsel identified that through an oversight on our part, the citations provided referenced the Legal Damages Act (LDA), which had been repealed and superseded by the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) prior to the filing of this action. We apologise for this error and bring this motion promptly to ensure the record accurately reflects the applicable law.

3. The RCCA contains substantively identical provisions to those relied upon. The facts, allegations, and relief sought are entirely unchanged. The citation corrections are as follows:
- Claim 2: LDA §4(2)(a) → RCCA Part III §2 (Compensatory Damages)
- Claim 3: LDA §7(1)(a)(IV) → RCCA Part III §5 (Consequential Damages / Loss of Enjoyment)
- Claim 4: LDA §5(1)(a) → RCCA Part III §3 (Punitive Damages)
- Claim 5: LDA §6 → RCCA Part III §4 (Nominal Damages)
- Prayer for Relief (e): LDA §9 → RCCA Part III §7 (Legal Fees)

4. The Plaintiff further seeks to add a claim for Civil Trespass under RCCA Part VII §3. The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.

5. No prejudice results to the Defendant. All claims arise from facts fully pleaded and known to the Defendant since the original filing.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves that the Court grant leave to amend the Complaint to correct erroneous statutory citations and to add one additional cause of action, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The original Complaint, filed 22 February 2026, cited the Legal Damages Act (LDA) throughout Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, and in the Prayer for Relief.

2. Upon review of the Complaint, counsel identified that through an oversight on our part, the citations provided referenced the Legal Damages Act (LDA), which had been repealed and superseded by the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) prior to the filing of this action. We apologise for this error and bring this motion promptly to ensure the record accurately reflects the applicable law.

3. The RCCA contains substantively identical provisions to those relied upon. The facts, allegations, and relief sought are entirely unchanged. The citation corrections are as follows:
- Claim 2: LDA §4(2)(a) → RCCA Part III §2 (Compensatory Damages)
- Claim 3: LDA §7(1)(a)(IV) → RCCA Part III §5 (Consequential Damages / Loss of Enjoyment)
- Claim 4: LDA §5(1)(a) → RCCA Part III §3 (Punitive Damages)
- Claim 5: LDA §6 → RCCA Part III §4 (Nominal Damages)
- Prayer for Relief (e): LDA §9 → RCCA Part III §7 (Legal Fees)

4. The Plaintiff further seeks to add a claim for Civil Trespass under RCCA Part VII §3. The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.

5. No prejudice results to the Defendant. All claims arise from facts fully pleaded and known to the Defendant since the original filing.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Post No. 13)

Granted.

Under Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), “Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge”.

The Court, upon examining the motion, sees two central changes sought.

The first change sought is modifying references from the Legal Damages Act to the RCCA. These changes are well-explained and are explicitly declared—they show exactly what will be removed and exactly what will be inserted in place. As such, these changes shall be made by striking through the old text and inserting the new text at relevant locations declared in the motion.

The second change sought is to add Civil Trespass as a claim. Adding new claims for relief during discovery is permissible under the Court rules. The Court, thus, permits the addition of a sixth claim as follows, in line with Plaintiff’s declaration quoted below.

Civil Trespass under RCCA Part VII §3. The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.

So Ordered,
Judge Multi

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST

The Plaintiff, emmythegremlin, represented by xXTheoryXx of Talion and Partners LLC, hereby submits the following requests to the Defendant, roy405, pursuant to the Court's Discovery rules. All responses are required within 48 hours. Objections must be raised within 24 hours.

I. DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. A full list of all evidence and exhibits the Defendant intends to rely upon at the hearing.

2. Any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135 on or before 20 February 2026.

3. Any evidence the Defendant intends to rely upon in support of any of the four defences listed in the Answer to Complaint (Post #9).

II. INTERROGATORIES

1. Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no.

2. At the time of the murder, did the Defendant observe the Plaintiff holding a book? Answer yes or no.

3. Was the Defendant aware at the time of the killing that unsaved written content in Minecraft books is permanently lost upon death?

4. The Defendant stated in global chat at 12:15 BRT: "book in hand means nothing." What did the Defendant mean by this statement?

5. At approximately 10:40 BRT on 20 February 2026, did the Defendant state in global chat that he was "waiting for my murder limit thing"? If so, please explain what the Defendant meant by this statement.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to respond to any evidence or answers disclosed.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST

The Plaintiff, emmythegremlin, represented by xXTheoryXx of Talion and Partners LLC, hereby submits the following requests to the Defendant, roy405, pursuant to the Court's Discovery rules. All responses are required within 48 hours. Objections must be raised within 24 hours.

I. DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. A full list of all evidence and exhibits the Defendant intends to rely upon at the hearing.

2. Any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135 on or before 20 February 2026.

3. Any evidence the Defendant intends to rely upon in support of any of the four defences listed in the Answer to Complaint (Post #9).

II. INTERROGATORIES

1. Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no.

2. At the time of the murder, did the Defendant observe the Plaintiff holding a book? Answer yes or no.

3. Was the Defendant aware at the time of the killing that unsaved written content in Minecraft books is permanently lost upon death?

4. The Defendant stated in global chat at 12:15 BRT: "book in hand means nothing." What did the Defendant mean by this statement?

5. At approximately 10:40 BRT on 20 February 2026, did the Defendant state in global chat that he was "waiting for my murder limit thing"? If so, please explain what the Defendant meant by this statement.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to respond to any evidence or answers disclosed.

@Babysoga4real

1. On Interrogatories: You have 48 hours from the time of posting the above quoted post to respond to the Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Objections must be raised within 24 hours of the above quoted post’s posting. See Rule 4.8.
2. On other discovery requests: Unlike as appears asserted by Plaintiff, responses to discovery requests are not bound by the same timeline as are responses to interrogatories. The Court gives the defense 60 hours from the time of this post to let the Court know if the defense substantially contests any discovery request made by the Plaintiff, as well as to post any objections to the requests. If the defense wishes to object or to note opposition on substantial grounds, the Court asks that the Defense please keep the objections and/or substantial opposition arguments in a single post, so as to keep things consolidated.

So Ordered,
Judge Multi

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,

I'd like to reply to the post made by the Plaintiff i.e. his Attorney.

1. Documents
First and Foremost I as the defendants Lawyer am unable to produce any and all documents that the Plaintiff requests as I do not have any access to these if they exist.

2. Questions

1. I do not believe that anything is clear on this point I am not the Defendant and was not there at the moment so I cannot answer this without committing any sort of perjury.

2. Although we do not know what kind of a book this was we do affirm the fact that some sort of read-able item was being held.

3. No, the Defendant was not aware of this and the defences disputes this point as not enough evidence has been brought forward to even provide minimal proof of this.

4. Well, we believe that this can be taken at face value that a book in a hand means nothing, wouldn't you agree?

5. We do not believe that the argument in this case is about if the Plaintiff was killed, but if they lost value from being killed this quote simple means that he was planning on killing the Plaintiff for malicious purposes but not intending any harm outside of the murder.​

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a complete and proper answer to Interrogatory 1 of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #17), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted five interrogatories to the Defendant during Discovery. The Defendant's counsel, Babysoga4real, responded to all five. However, the response to Interrogatory 1 is procedurally defective and does not constitute a valid answer.

2. Interrogatory 1 asked: "Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no."

3. The Defendant's counsel responded: "I do not believe that anything is clear on this point. I am not the Defendant and was not there at the moment so I cannot answer this without committing any sort of perjury."

4. This response is invalid for the following reasons:

(a) Interrogatories are directed to the party - roy405 - not to counsel personally. Counsel is obligated to consult their client and provide an answer on their behalf. Personal ignorance of counsel is not a valid basis for refusing to answer.

(b) The suggestion that answering would risk perjury is without merit. Counsel answers interrogatories based on instructions from their client. If the Defendant authorised the entry, the answer is yes. If he did not, the answer is no. There is no ambiguity that would expose counsel to perjury.

(c) The response does not constitute an objection to the interrogatory, nor does it provide any substantive answer. It is a refusal dressed as a procedural concern.

5. The question of whether the Defendant had authorisation to enter plot c135 is directly material to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and is a proper subject of Discovery.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper yes or no answer to Interrogatory 1 within 24 hours, and that failure to comply be treated as an adverse admission that no such authorisation existed.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a complete and proper answer to Interrogatory 1 of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #17), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted five interrogatories to the Defendant during Discovery. The Defendant's counsel, Babysoga4real, responded to all five. However, the response to Interrogatory 1 is procedurally defective and does not constitute a valid answer.

2. Interrogatory 1 asked: "Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no."

3. The Defendant's counsel responded: "I do not believe that anything is clear on this point. I am not the Defendant and was not there at the moment so I cannot answer this without committing any sort of perjury."

4. This response is invalid for the following reasons:

(a) Interrogatories are directed to the party - roy405 - not to counsel personally. Counsel is obligated to consult their client and provide an answer on their behalf. Personal ignorance of counsel is not a valid basis for refusing to answer.

(b) The suggestion that answering would risk perjury is without merit. Counsel answers interrogatories based on instructions from their client. If the Defendant authorised the entry, the answer is yes. If he did not, the answer is no. There is no ambiguity that would expose counsel to perjury.

(c) The response does not constitute an objection to the interrogatory, nor does it provide any substantive answer. It is a refusal dressed as a procedural concern.

5. The question of whether the Defendant had authorisation to enter plot c135 is directly material to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and is a proper subject of Discovery.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper yes or no answer to Interrogatory 1 within 24 hours, and that failure to comply be treated as an adverse admission that no such authorisation existed.

@Babysoga4real you have 48 hours to respond to this motion to compel

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY

The Plaintiff respectfully notifies the Court that the Defendant's counsel, Babysoga4real, has failed to respond to the Motion to Compel (Post #18) within the 48-hour window ordered by the Court (Post #19). That deadline expired at approximately 12:39 PM today, 27 March 2026.

Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Motion to Compel, the Plaintiff requests that the Court treat the Defendant's failure to respond as an adverse admission that no prior authorisation existed to enter plot c135 on 20 February 2026.

Additionally, the Plaintiff notes that Discovery closes this evening. The Plaintiff is prepared to proceed to hearing.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — MOTION TO COMPEL (Post No. 18)

The Court has not received a response on the Motion to Compel, but this Court had not ordered compliance with the request made in that motion. We had hoped to hear a response from the defense before ruling on whether or not the interrogatory was properly answered. We got no such response.

Upon review of the record, the answer to the first interrogatory is plainly insufficient. This is a case where an active player explicitly sought the aid of public defense. The Defendant must "answer truthfully and to the best of their ability" (Rule 4.8). The obligation to answer "to the best of their ability" (ibid) is placed on the party themself; if this requires the Defendant to actively talk to their counsel in order to formulate a response, then the Defendant must do so. Thus, the Court finds the statement "I am not the Defendant and was not there" (Post No. 17) as wholly insufficient to the obligation for Defendant to provide an answer to the best of their ability.

The Plaintiff seeks for this Court to draw lack of reply to the Motion to Compel "as an adverse admission that no prior authorisation existed" (Post No. 20). This Court thinks that such a sanction is premature. Discovery has not closed, and there is an alternate path to allow for the interrogatory to be answered by Defendant while not prejudicing the opposing party.

As such, the Court orders as follows:

1. Within 24 hours, the Defendant shall provide a substantial answer to the first interrogatory that is both truthful and written to the best of their ability. This may be delivered through counsel, but must be responsive to the substance of the question "Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026?".
2. Discovery is extended until 24 hours after the Defendant provides the answer in (1).
3. Failure to comply with (1) may lead to a charge of Contempt of Court and potential further sanctions from the Court.

So Ordered,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO COMPEL - DOCUMENT REQUESTS

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper response to the Plaintiff's Document Requests submitted during Discovery, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted three document requests to the Defendant as part of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #16). The Defendant's counsel responded at Post #17 as follows: "I as the defendants Lawyer am unable to produce any and all documents that the Plaintiff requests as I do not have any access to these if they exist."

2. This response is defective for the same reasons identified by this Court in its Order on the Motion to Compel (Post #21). This Court held that the obligation to respond "to the best of their ability" is placed on the Defendant personally, and that "if this requires the Defendant to actively talk to their counsel in order to formulate a response, then the Defendant must do so."

3. The same obligation applies to document requests. The Defendant's counsel cannot refuse production on the basis of personal lack of access. Roy405 must be consulted to determine whether the requested documents exist and, if so, to produce them through counsel.

4. The phrase "if they exist" confirms that counsel has not consulted the Defendant on this matter at all. This is the same failure identified by this Court regarding Interrogatory 1 - a failure by counsel to engage with their client in formulating a response.

5. Document Request 2 is of particular materiality - it asks for any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135. This goes directly to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and the Defendant's unanswered Interrogatory 1. If such communications exist and are being withheld, that is a serious discovery violation. If they do not exist, the Defendant must formally say so.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to:
(a) To provide a formal response confirming either that the requested documents do not exist, or producing them if they do; and
(b) Treat any failure to comply as confirmation that no such documents exist and that no prior authorisation was granted to enter plot c135.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,
I am currently unable to reach the defendant therefore I request an extension of 24 hours to all current. deadlines

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,
I am currently unable to reach the defendant therefore I request an extension of 24 hours to all current. deadlines

I will grant you a 24-hour extension as to (1) in the Order on the Motion to Compel above.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO COMPEL - DOCUMENT REQUESTS

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper response to the Plaintiff's Document Requests submitted during Discovery, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted three document requests to the Defendant as part of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #16). The Defendant's counsel responded at Post #17 as follows: "I as the defendants Lawyer am unable to produce any and all documents that the Plaintiff requests as I do not have any access to these if they exist."

2. This response is defective for the same reasons identified by this Court in its Order on the Motion to Compel (Post #21). This Court held that the obligation to respond "to the best of their ability" is placed on the Defendant personally, and that "if this requires the Defendant to actively talk to their counsel in order to formulate a response, then the Defendant must do so."

3. The same obligation applies to document requests. The Defendant's counsel cannot refuse production on the basis of personal lack of access. Roy405 must be consulted to determine whether the requested documents exist and, if so, to produce them through counsel.

4. The phrase "if they exist" confirms that counsel has not consulted the Defendant on this matter at all. This is the same failure identified by this Court regarding Interrogatory 1 - a failure by counsel to engage with their client in formulating a response.

5. Document Request 2 is of particular materiality - it asks for any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135. This goes directly to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and the Defendant's unanswered Interrogatory 1. If such communications exist and are being withheld, that is a serious discovery violation. If they do not exist, the Defendant must formally say so.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to:
(a) To provide a formal response confirming either that the requested documents do not exist, or producing them if they do; and
(b) Treat any failure to comply as confirmation that no such documents exist and that no prior authorisation was granted to enter plot c135.

@Babysoga4real please also provide a response regarding whether or not this Court should grant this motion to compel within the next 36 hours if you so wish. If you do not wish to do so, please let me know, so I may rule on it having given the Defense the opportunity to respond.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,
I would like to submit this written answer of the defendant to the honorable Court.

"im not rly sure what im supposed to say, but i think i saw smth about entering that plot previously? i did enter it previously several times before, but i have no proof of this. the "private room" was not locked and had no signs saying it was private, door was open too. it might have been an apartment tho, unsure. either way, i did enter the plot before, as it was a place advertised in chat multiple times. XxTheoryxX also claimed this lawsuit "isn't personal", but both emmy and .caldiron have made repeated hostile remarks towards me both before and after the murder."-roy

I believe this fills it fully.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO COMPEL - DOCUMENT REQUESTS

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper response to the Plaintiff's Document Requests submitted during Discovery, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted three document requests to the Defendant as part of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #16). The Defendant's counsel responded at Post #17 as follows: "I as the defendants Lawyer am unable to produce any and all documents that the Plaintiff requests as I do not have any access to these if they exist."

2. This response is defective for the same reasons identified by this Court in its Order on the Motion to Compel (Post #21). This Court held that the obligation to respond "to the best of their ability" is placed on the Defendant personally, and that "if this requires the Defendant to actively talk to their counsel in order to formulate a response, then the Defendant must do so."

3. The same obligation applies to document requests. The Defendant's counsel cannot refuse production on the basis of personal lack of access. Roy405 must be consulted to determine whether the requested documents exist and, if so, to produce them through counsel.

4. The phrase "if they exist" confirms that counsel has not consulted the Defendant on this matter at all. This is the same failure identified by this Court regarding Interrogatory 1 - a failure by counsel to engage with their client in formulating a response.

5. Document Request 2 is of particular materiality - it asks for any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135. This goes directly to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and the Defendant's unanswered Interrogatory 1. If such communications exist and are being withheld, that is a serious discovery violation. If they do not exist, the Defendant must formally say so.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to:
(a) To provide a formal response confirming either that the requested documents do not exist, or producing them if they do; and
(b) Treat any failure to comply as confirmation that no such documents exist and that no prior authorisation was granted to enter plot c135.

Your Honor,

we as the defence do not currently to my knowledge have any of these documents and could not produce these as we simply lack the information and screenshots that are being asked of us. It is a request for something impossible.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO COMPEL - DOCUMENT REQUESTS

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper response to the Plaintiff's Document Requests submitted during Discovery, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted three document requests to the Defendant as part of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #16). The Defendant's counsel responded at Post #17 as follows: "I as the defendants Lawyer am unable to produce any and all documents that the Plaintiff requests as I do not have any access to these if they exist."

2. This response is defective for the same reasons identified by this Court in its Order on the Motion to Compel (Post #21). This Court held that the obligation to respond "to the best of their ability" is placed on the Defendant personally, and that "if this requires the Defendant to actively talk to their counsel in order to formulate a response, then the Defendant must do so."

3. The same obligation applies to document requests. The Defendant's counsel cannot refuse production on the basis of personal lack of access. Roy405 must be consulted to determine whether the requested documents exist and, if so, to produce them through counsel.

4. The phrase "if they exist" confirms that counsel has not consulted the Defendant on this matter at all. This is the same failure identified by this Court regarding Interrogatory 1 - a failure by counsel to engage with their client in formulating a response.

5. Document Request 2 is of particular materiality - it asks for any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135. This goes directly to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and the Defendant's unanswered Interrogatory 1. If such communications exist and are being withheld, that is a serious discovery violation. If they do not exist, the Defendant must formally say so.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to:
(a) To provide a formal response confirming either that the requested documents do not exist, or producing them if they do; and
(b) Treat any failure to comply as confirmation that no such documents exist and that no prior authorisation was granted to enter plot c135.

@Babysoga4real please also provide a response regarding whether or not this Court should grant this motion to compel within the next 36 hours if you so wish. If you do not wish to do so, please let me know, so I may rule on it having given the Defense the opportunity to respond.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION TO COMPEL (Post No. 22)

Plaintiff filed the quoted motion to compel on the basis that Defendant had not provided any documents in response to Plaintiff's document requests made earlier in Discovery (see: Post No. 15 and Post No. 17). This Court gave the Defendant 36 hours to respond to the motion to compel or to inform the Court if the defense did not want to respond to the motion itself (Post No. 24). Defense responded saying that they did not have the requested documents in their possession (Post No. 26).

Moving to the substance of the motion, the Plaintiff's Document request in Post No. 15 requested three classes of documents:

I. DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. A full list of all evidence and exhibits the Defendant intends to rely upon at the hearing.

2. Any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135 on or before 20 February 2026.

3. Any evidence the Defendant intends to rely upon in support of any of the four defences listed in the Answer to Complaint (Post #9).

The Court finds that the material sought in the could plausibly be related to Plaintiff's case. In particular, the second class of records sought is reasonably targeted to specific records that could be relevant, though the Defendant has already stated that no such records are in their possession.

At the same time, the Court finds it odd to compel the first and third requests both on procedural and equitable grounds. Under Rule 4.2, "All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission." As such, the actual exhibits used at trial would need to be submitted prior to the end discovery anyway. The Court also worries that requiring the defense to produce a separate list of Exhibits that the Defense intends to rely upon may unduly restrict the defense beyond what is required by Court Rules, require the defense to prematurely reveal trial strategy, or otherwise harm the ability of the Defendant to pursue the full-throated defense that Ninth Charter Right penumbrally guarantees.

Moving specifically to the Motion to Compel's asks from the Court, Plaintiff seeks for Court to compel Defendant:

(a) To provide a formal response confirming either that the requested documents do not exist, or producing them if they do; and
(b) Treat any failure to comply as confirmation that no such documents exist and that no prior authorisation was granted to enter plot c135.

(Post No. 22, Par. 6).

Request (a) has been analyzed above. Request (b) is asking the Court to draw a specific factual conclusion; the Court will do its fact-finding after the conclusion of the trial itself.

The Court thus denies the motion, in-part on substantial grounds (regarding the first and third discovery requests, and the request to draw a factual conclusion) and in-part as moot (regarding the second discovery request, in line with Post No. 26's admission that no such documents exist).

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[xXTheoryXx]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

WITNESS LIST

Pursuant to Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff hereby submits the following witnesses for testimony at hearing:

1. .CaldironJa1 — Property owner of plot c135. Will testify to the Plaintiff's authorised presence and assigned workspace; his knowledge of and involvement in the literary work being produced; the commercial purpose of the work; authorship of the ban notice (P-009); and his characterisation of the harm as materially damaging to his business productivity.

2. IamJeb_ — Neutral third-party witness. Will testify to independently observing and publicly stating that the Defendant killed someone and that five pages of written work were lost as a result; and to witnessing the post-murder global chat exchange including the Defendant's admissions in real time.

 

[Franciscus]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

WITNESS LIST

Pursuant to Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff hereby submits the following witnesses for testimony at hearing:

1. .CaldironJa1 — Property owner of plot c135. Will testify to the Plaintiff's authorised presence and assigned workspace; his knowledge of and involvement in the literary work being produced; the commercial purpose of the work; authorship of the ban notice (P-009); and his characterisation of the harm as materially damaging to his business productivity.

2. IamJeb_ — Neutral third-party witness. Will testify to independently observing and publicly stating that the Defendant killed someone and that five pages of written work were lost as a result; and to witnessing the post-murder global chat exchange including the Defendant's admissions in real time.

Noted.

As a reminder, discovery will close 24 hours after Post No. 25 was posted.

 

[Franciscus]

Discovery closed at 5:48 AM, Eastern Daylight Time, this morning. As such, we will move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (cc: @xXTheoryXx) shall have 72 hours beginning at the time of the posting of this message to deliver the Plaintiff’s opening statement.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Your Honor,

I respectfully request a 48-hour extension to submit my opening statement.
Due to a scheduling conflict, I am unable to meet the current 72-hour deadline.

I apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate the Court's consideration.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

I respectfully request a 48-hour extension to submit my opening statement.
Due to a scheduling conflict, I am unable to meet the current 72-hour deadline.

I apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate the Court's consideration.

Granted

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Opening Statement

COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISTRICT COURT

emmythegremlin v. roy405
Case No. [2026] DCR 24​

PLAINTIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT​

Presented by: xXTheoryXx, Talion & Partners LLC, on behalf of Plaintiff emmythegremlin

——————————————————————​

I. INTRODUCTION

Your Honour, this case is about a writer who came to work and left with nothing.

On the morning of 20 February 2026, emmythegremlin was sitting in a private office on plot c135, the commercial premises of .CaldironJa1, owner of Sagarana. She had been personally invited, assigned a dedicated workspace, and was being paid DC$1,500 to produce "A General History of Redmont (Vol. 1)." She had spent hours researching, drafting, and composing. She was on page 12. And then roy405 walked in and killed her.

In one moment, five pages of dense original literary work (pages 7 through 12, produced across approximately three hours of active writing) were permanently and irrecoverably destroyed. The Defendant then took to global chat to mock the Plaintiff's legal rights, dismiss her loss as meaningless, and threaten a retaliatory lawsuit.

The Plaintiff will prove six causes of action: unlawful murder, destruction of literary property, punitive damages, nominal damages, loss of enjoyment, and civil trespass. Each is independently supported by evidence. Many are supported by the Defendant's own words and his own counsel's admissions made during Discovery.

——————————————————————​

II. THE STORY OF 20 FEBRUARY 2026

The Workspace

Sagarana is a well-known commercial literary space in Redmont. At 10:55 BRT, .CaldironJa1 personally invited emmythegremlin to his office at plot c135 and assigned her the room adjacent to his own. He shared historical research materials with her from his locked library and praised her in-progress work in real time, describing it as "like an academic article." (P-007)

The office was private. There were visible signs warning it was private. The display lectern within it was locked by .CaldironJa1. (P-007) emmythegremlin was there with the full knowledge and express authorisation of the property owner.

roy405 had none of that. He has admitted in his own Interrogatory 1 answer that he has "no proof" of any authorisation. He could not name a person who let him in. He could not point to a single communication granting access. He has never claimed he was invited.

The Murder

At 11:56:40 BRT, the server notified: "roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." One second later: "911 roy405 has murdered you!" (P-001, P-002)

The Defendant does not dispute the killing. His own counsel confirmed in Discovery that he was "planning on killing the Plaintiff for malicious purposes." That is premeditation, stated by the defence.

The Destruction of the Work

Here is the technical fact at the heart of this case, and it is a fact the Defendant himself proved.

DemocracyCraft runs with keepInventory active. Items are retained on death. The Defendant confirmed this in global chat at 12:06 BRT: "keep inventory is on lol." emmythegremlin responded immediately: "keep inventory doesn't save books." This is the critical mechanic. A book and quill in active composition is not a stored inventory item. It is unsaved, in-progress work held in the writer's hands. When a writer is murdered mid-composition, that work is gone.

emmythegremlin confirmed the loss at 12:08 BRT: "i lost five full pages of written stuff." (P-006) This was independently corroborated in real time by IamJeb_: "killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy." (P-006) The evidence for the loss is immediate, multi-source, and unambiguous.

The work destroyed, pages 7 through 12, was part of a DC$1,500 commissioned manuscript. That commission was being paid by .CaldironJa1 directly to emmythegremlin as the writer. The finished copies were to be sold at DC$166 each through Sagarana's commercial library. The murder rendered the work undeliverable. A writer cannot submit an incomplete manuscript.

The Defendant's Response

Rather than accept responsibility, the Defendant used global chat to dismiss the Plaintiff's legal rights entirely. He stated: "murder isnt suable." He stated: "u cant sue for that lol." He stated: "if she sues me ill countersue for triple that lol."

When the Plaintiff held up her book as visible evidence, the Defendant responded: "means nothing." (P-006) He was aware she had a book in hand. His own counsel confirmed in Discovery that "some sort of read-able item was being held." He saw it. He chose to disregard it.

He further stated: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing." This is not a denial of wrongdoing. It is the Defendant thinking out loud about which excuses might work. He acknowledged the legal implications. He killed her anyway.

Approximately 76 minutes before the murder, at 10:40 BRT, the Defendant had publicly admitted he was managing his murder cooldown in order to continue killing, stating he was "waiting for my murder limit thing." (P-006) This is not an impulsive act. This is a player who plans his murders.

——————————————————————​

III. THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCES WILL FAIL

The Answer to Complaint raised four defences. Each is addressed below.

Defence 1 — "No Property Loss Caused by Defendant"
The Defendant did not physically take a book from the Plaintiff's inventory. But the loss is not disputed. emmythegremlin confirmed it. IamJeb_ confirmed it. .CaldironJa1 described it as material damage to his business. The Defendant confirmed keepInventory is active, thereby proving by his own words that only unsaved book content (exactly what Emmy lost) would be destroyed on death. He caused the death. He caused the loss. The chain is direct.

Defence 2 — "Game Mechanics"
This defence argues that normal gameplay caused the loss, not the Defendant. This misunderstands both the facts and the law. Murder is not a neutral game mechanic. It is a criminal act under CCA Part IV §3. The mechanic that destroyed the pages was activated by an unlawful killing. A defendant cannot commit a crime and then shelter behind the consequences of that crime as a mechanical inevitability. The death was caused by the Defendant. The loss followed directly from the death.

Defence 3 — "Lack of Knowledge"
The defence submitted in Discovery that the Defendant "was not aware" that unsaved book content is destroyed on death. This is contradicted on two levels. First, emmythegremlin told him directly at 12:06 BRT, the same exchange where he confirmed keepInventory was active. He was informed in real time. Second, and more importantly, the Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 is a strict liability tort. Knowledge is not a required element. The Defendant entered without consent. That is sufficient.

Defence 4 — "Speculative Damages"
The Plaintiff's damages are not speculative. The commission is confirmed by .CaldironJa1. The destroyed pages are confirmed by the Plaintiff, by IamJeb_, and by the keepInventory mechanic the Defendant himself explained. The value of the work (DC$1,500) is a concrete, agreed commercial figure. The Plaintiff's compensatory claim of DC$5,000 is modest relative to the actual loss and fully supported by RCCA Part III §2.

——————————————————————​

IV. THE CLAIMS AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW

Claim 1 — Unlawful Murder (CCA Part IV §3)
Confirmed by P-001 (server kill log), P-002 (death screen), and the Defendant's own admissions. The killing is not disputed. Civil liability flows from it under CCA Part I §6(1).

Claim 2 — Compensatory Damages for Destruction of Literary Property (RCCA Part III §2)
Five pages of an original commissioned manuscript were permanently destroyed. The work was protected from creation under IPA §3. The commission value was DC$1,500, confirmed by .CaldironJa1, who will testify. The destruction of pages 7 through 12 rendered the entire commission undeliverable. The Plaintiff seeks DC$5,000 in compensatory damages, a figure the evidence more than supports.

Claim 3 — Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III §3)
The Defendant managed his murder cooldown 76 minutes before the killing. His own counsel admitted he was "planning on killing the Plaintiff for malicious purposes." He saw the book in Emmy's hand and dismissed it as meaningless. He mocked her in global chat and threatened retaliatory litigation. This conduct is precisely what punitive damages exist to address. The Plaintiff seeks DC$15,000.

Claim 4 — Nominal Damages (RCCA Part III §4)
Nominal damages of up to DC$7,500 are available as recognition that a legal wrong occurred, with no available defences. Even if the Court were to find against the Plaintiff on every other head of damage (which is not anticipated), nominal damages must follow as a matter of law.

Claim 5 — Consequential Damages / Loss of Enjoyment (RCCA Part III §5)
emmythegremlin was on the server that morning for one documented purpose: to write. She announced it publicly. She had spent hours in active creative work. The murder destroyed not only the product of that session but her ability to complete the commissioned work she was present to deliver. DC$7,500 is sought for loss of enjoyment and consequential impact.

Claim 6 — Civil Trespass (RCCA Part VII §3)
This is perhaps the simplest claim in the case. Civil Trespass under RCCA Part VII §3 is a strict liability intentional tort. The question is only: did roy405 enter plot c135 without consent? His own Interrogatory 1 answer confirms he did. He has "no proof" of authorisation. .CaldironJa1 gave none. The ban notice (P-009) confirms the entry was unauthorised. The Defendant's claim that the space had "no signs" and an "open door" is directly contradicted by .CaldironJa1, who will testify that very visible private warning signs were present, and is in any case legally irrelevant. The RCCA requires consent. The absence of a locked door is not consent.

——————————————————————​

V. CONCLUSION

Your Honour, roy405 planned his kills. He entered private property without permission. He murdered a commissioned writer mid-composition. He destroyed three hours of irreplaceable original work. He laughed about it in global chat and told emmythegremlin she could not sue him.

He was wrong about the law. He was wrong about the evidence. And the record of this case (much of it built from his own words and his own counsel's admissions) leaves no serious doubt about what happened, why it happened, and who is responsible.

The Plaintiff asks this Court to award the full sum of DC$27,500 in damages, plus DC$8,250 in legal fees under RCCA Part III §7, for a total of DC$35,750.

 

[Franciscus]

Thank you, counselor.

The Defendant ( CC: @Babysoga4real ) will have 72 hours to present their opening statement. If an extension is requested, one of up to 48 hours will be granted automatically.

 

[Franciscus]

Thank you, counselor.

The Defendant ( CC: @Babysoga4real ) will have 72 hours to present their opening statement. If an extension is requested, one of up to 48 hours will be granted automatically.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT — BABYSOGA

The Court Rules note the following with respect to the bar to public defender competency:

A player who qualifies and is given a Public Defender to handle their case are only entitled to an attorney who will fulfill the following:

1. Timely respond to cases on their behalf
2. Protect the player’s constitutional rights
3. Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed.

(Rule 6.5).

In this case, the Court gave 72 hours to the defendant to present an opening statement (Post No. 34). Defendant’s public defender counsel was pinged to alert them to this deadline (ibid). The 72 hours began in Friday at 11:19 AM EDT, and ended this morning at 11:19 AM EDT. While the Court offered to grant extensions upon request, neither has ann extension been requested nor an opening statement was posted.

Public Defender has, as such, failed to timely respond on behalf of the Defendant. This is in direct violation of Rule 6.5 and interferes with the administration of justice in this trial. For this, and in line with prior decisions of both the District Court regarding the mandatory nature of opening statements (see: PetitRenard_ v. Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] DCR 78, Post No. 8; louq v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 68, Post No. 10; Doc v. qsdt [2025] DCR 38, Post No. 18) and the Federal Court (see: DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42, Post No. 38), the Court thus examines the actions and concludes that they constitute contempt of Court. This Court finds BabySoga guilty of one instance of Contempt of Court under Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 2(b). BabySoga shall be sentenced to 10 minutes in prison and a fine of $4,500.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

The Defendant ( @Babysoga4real ) is ordered to provide, within 48 hours, their opening statement. All are warned that failure to do so may result in further contempt charges, conduct strikes, and/or court-ordered substitution of the public defender.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,
due to irl reason I have to forfeit my legal counsel responsibility. Another PD should be assigned. I will not be able to continue this case. I also apologize for delaying this case any further and fully accept the penalties.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,
due to irl reason I have to forfeit my legal counsel responsibility. Another PD should be assigned. I will not be able to continue this case. I also apologize for delaying this case any further and fully accept the penalties.

Noted. Deadline for opening statement is tolled pending a new PD assignment.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I have assigned @ToadKing to this case, however, I am struggling to reach him.

If he does not respond with 48 hours I will assign a new Public Defender.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor,

I have assigned @ToadKing to this case, however, I am struggling to reach him.

If he does not respond with 48 hours I will assign a new Public Defender.

Counselor: 48 hours have come and gone. Any update on this?

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, Toad has resigned, effective about 2 hours ago.

I will personally represent the Defendant.

 

[Dartanboy]

I would ask for 48 hours to file an Opening Statement.

 

[Franciscus]

I would ask for 48 hours to file an Opening Statement.

Granted.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff has submitted a significant amount of unverifiable evidence, notably:

"latest.txt"
and
"2026-02-20-03.txt"

are TEXT FILES. These are easily editable, and can be edited prior to uploading.

These should be inadmissable as evidence, as there is no way to confirm the authenticity of the so-called "logs." Only screenshots of in-game chat are permissible.

As such, we ask the following exhibits be struck:
P-001
P-006
P-007
P-009
P-010

 

[Dartanboy]

The murder caused the permanent and total destruction of approximately five pages of unsaved literary work — pages 7 through 12 of the in-progress manuscript — which formed part of a work valued at approximately 170 DC$ and represented 15 minutes of active creative writing.

In one moment, five pages of dense original literary work (pages 7 through 12, produced across approximately three hours of active writing) were permanently and irrecoverably destroyed.

Objection

PERJURY

The Plaintiff is exaggerating how much work was done in an attempt to make their alleged losses seem more extreme.

Initially, Plaintiff claims they lost "15 minutes of active creative writing" and then later claims it was "approximately three hours of active writing".

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim
Plaintiff claims their work was "permanently and irrevocably destroyed", however, it is clearly still available in Exhibit P-005.

Additionally, even if we assume it was truly "permanently and irrevocably destroyed" (which it wasn't), there is no evidence that the Plaintiff actually transmitted their writings from a Google Doc to an in-game book beyond a single title on Page 3.

This failure to produce evidence results in a case that relies solely on testimony from the Plaintiff, and their employer, which is biased testimony.

As such, this is a proven-false claim with no evidence supporting it.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim
Plaintiff claims their work was "permanently and irrevocably destroyed", however, it is clearly still available in Exhibit P-005.

Additionally, even if we assume it was truly "permanently and irrevocably destroyed" (which it wasn't), there is no evidence that the Plaintiff actually transmitted their writings from a Google Doc to an in-game book beyond a single title on Page 3.

This failure to produce evidence results in a case that relies solely on testimony from the Plaintiff, and their employer, which is biased testimony.

As such, this is a proven-false claim with no evidence supporting it.

Plaintiff (cc: @xXTheoryXx) shall have 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Dartanboy]

Plaintiff (cc: @xXTheoryXx) shall have 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

Your honor, is the Opening Statement deadline tolled?

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor, is the Opening Statement deadline tolled?

Sure. Opening Statement deadline is tolled until the Court rules on the MTD in Post No. 45.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Your honor,

Due to in real life obligations i would like to ask for a 24h extension.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor,

Due to in real life obligations i would like to ask for a 24h extension.

Granted. Response to MTD now due at 10:31 AM on April 16 (Eastern Daylight Time).

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

PERJURY

The Plaintiff is exaggerating how much work was done in an attempt to make their alleged losses seem more extreme.

Initially, Plaintiff claims they lost "15 minutes of active creative writing" and then later claims it was "approximately three hours of active writing".

Objection

PERJURY

The Plaintiff is exaggerating how much work was done in an attempt to make their alleged losses seem more extreme.

Initially, Plaintiff claims they lost "15 minutes of active creative writing" and then later claims it was "approximately three hours of active writing".

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — Objection to Perjury (Post No. 46)

Sustained. Plaintiff, in complaint, pleaded that 15 minutes of creative writing were destroyed (Compl., Factual Allegation No. 4; id., Written Statement from the Plaintiff). The Court does not understand why this number has suddenly changed. Seeing no response from Defense in the standard response 24-hour window established under the Court Rules, the Court finds no explanation in the record for this change.

On review, the Court orders that Plaintiff is estopped from arguing that the amount of active creative work lost was not approximately 15 minutes. While the Court may lift this estoppel at reconsideration, Plaintiff must demonstrate to the Court why the time window has apparently grown. In the meantime, we will not strike the contested opening statement remark from the record.

The Court is taking the question of criminal summary charges on perjury under advisement, and declines to rule on that question now.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim
Plaintiff claims their work was "permanently and irrevocably destroyed", however, it is clearly still available in Exhibit P-005.

Additionally, even if we assume it was truly "permanently and irrevocably destroyed" (which it wasn't), there is no evidence that the Plaintiff actually transmitted their writings from a Google Doc to an in-game book beyond a single title on Page 3.

This failure to produce evidence results in a case that relies solely on testimony from the Plaintiff, and their employer, which is biased testimony.

As such, this is a proven-false claim with no evidence supporting it.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS​

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Motion to Dismiss (Post #45) and alleges:

I. THE STANDARD

Rule 5.5 requires "insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." The question is not whether the Defendant disputes the evidence, but whether the evidence is so inadequate that no reasonable finder of fact could find for the Plaintiff. It is not.

II. THE MTD RESTS ON A FACTUAL ERROR

The Defendant argues the literary work "is clearly still available in Exhibit P-005." This is wrong. P-005 is a Google Document, an external browser-based tool that exists entirely outside Minecraft. The in-game book-and-quill is a distinct Minecraft item storing content composed directly in-game. The two are separate documents that cannot sync or restore each other. The survival of P-005 has no bearing on whether in-game content survived.

III. THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT

Three independent sources confirm the loss. The Defendant himself confirmed the operative mechanic in global chat: "keep inventory is on lol," to which the Plaintiff responded: "keep inventory doesn't save books." The Plaintiff confirmed the loss at 12:08 BRT: "i lost five full pages of written stuff." Neutral third party IamJeb_ independently corroborated: "killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy." The Rule 5.5 threshold is not approached.

The Defendant's argument that there is "no evidence of transcription" also fails. Whether the Plaintiff was composing original content directly in-game or working from prior notes, the in-game book-and-quill and the Google Doc remain entirely separate items. The survival of one does not establish the survival of the other. The defense's transcription argument is therefore irrelevant to whether in-game content was lost. More fundamentally, weighing the quality of evidence is a question for trial, not dismissal.

IV. THREE CLAIMS ARE UNADDRESSED

The MTD targets only Claim 2. It does not address, and therefore cannot succeed against:

Claim 1 (Unlawful Murder): Confirmed by P-001 and P-002. Never disputed by the Defendant. No analysis of book content required.

Claim 6 (Civil Trespass): Strict liability. The Defendant's own Discovery response concedes he has "no proof" of authorisation to enter plot c135. Essentially uncontested.

Claims 3, 4, and 5 (Damages): Derivative of Claims 1 and 6, which survive regardless.

Even if the Court had doubts about Claim 2, the action cannot be dismissed while Claims 1 and 6 stand unchallenged.

V. CONCLUSION

The MTD's factual premise is wrong, the evidence is sufficient, and three claims are entirely unaddressed. The motion should be denied in its entirety.


DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Objection

IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff has submitted a significant amount of unverifiable evidence, notably:

"latest.txt"
and
"2026-02-20-03.txt"

are TEXT FILES. These are easily editable, and can be edited prior to uploading.

These should be inadmissable as evidence, as there is no way to confirm the authenticity of the so-called "logs." Only screenshots of in-game chat are permissible.

As such, we ask the following exhibits be struck:
P-001
P-006
P-007
P-009
P-010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

OBJECTION - COUNTER TO IMPROPER EVIDENCE (Post #43)

The Defendant's objection asks this Court to strike P-001, P-006, P-007, P-009, and P-010 solely on the basis that they are text files and therefore theoretically editable. This is insufficient grounds for exclusion.

The Improper Evidence objection requires evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately. The Defendant has not identified a single specific inconsistency, alteration, or irregularity in any of the contested exhibits. The objection rests entirely on the theoretical possibility of editing, not any demonstrated evidence of it.

Furthermore, the contested logs are corroborated independently. The kill confirmed in P-001 is corroborated by P-002, a death screen screenshot. The chat exchanges in P-006 are corroborated by P-003 and P-004, which are Discord screenshots. The Defendant has never denied making the statements attributed to him in those logs. P-009 and P-010 are corroborated by the testimony of .CaldironJa1, who will appear as a witness.

Should the Court have any remaining concerns regarding authenticity, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that server staff are able to independently verify all server records, including kill logs and chat logs, from their end. The Plaintiff welcomes any such verification the Court sees fit to request.

The Court should weigh any authenticity concerns when assessing the probative value of the exhibits at trial. Wholesale exclusion based on file type alone, without any showing of actual alteration, is not warranted. The objection should be overruled.


DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — Objection to Perjury (Post No. 46)

Sustained. Plaintiff, in complaint, pleaded that 15 minutes of creative writing were destroyed (Compl., Factual Allegation No. 4; id., Written Statement from the Plaintiff). The Court does not understand why this number has suddenly changed. Seeing no response from Defense in the standard response 24-hour window established under the Court Rules, the Court finds no explanation in the record for this change.

On review, the Court orders that Plaintiff is estopped from arguing that the amount of active creative work lost was not approximately 15 minutes. While the Court may lift this estoppel at reconsideration, Plaintiff must demonstrate to the Court why the time window has apparently grown. In the meantime, we will not strike the contested opening statement remark from the record.

The Court is taking the question of criminal summary charges on perjury under advisement, and declines to rule on that question now.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

MOTION TO RECONSIDER - PERJURY ESTOPPEL (Post #51)

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider the estoppel issued in Post #51, and in support thereof provides the explanation the Court requested as to why the time figures differ between the complaint and the opening statement.

The two figures describe two different things and are not contradictory.

The complaint's reference to "approximately 15 minutes" appears in Factual Allegation No. 4, which reads: "The Plaintiff worked actively for approximately 15 minutes writing the in-progress manuscript immediately prior to the murder." This figure describes the active in-game writing window immediately preceding the killing, nothing more.

The opening statement's reference to a broader time period described the total creative session on 20 February 2026, which encompassed research using materials in .CaldironJa1's library, preparation, and collaboration in addition to the active writing itself. These are distinct activities. The complaint never stated the total session lasted 15 minutes. It stated the active writing immediately before the murder lasted 15 minutes. The opening statement's phrasing did not accurately reflect this distinction, but the underlying facts are consistent.

The Plaintiff does not seek to argue that more than approximately 15 minutes of active writing was lost. That figure from the complaint stands. The Plaintiff asks only that the Court recognise the two figures were measuring different things and that no intentional misrepresentation was made.

The Plaintiff further notes that even if the estoppel remains in place, it does not diminish the damages claims. The value of destroyed literary property is not determined solely by the time taken to produce it. A commissioned work commands its value based on the agreement between the parties, the commercial purpose it serves, and the harm caused by its loss. Those factors remain unaffected regardless of how long the active writing window lasted.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court lift or clarify the estoppel accordingly.

DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

MOTION TO RECONSIDER - PERJURY ESTOPPEL (Post #51)

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider the estoppel issued in Post #51, and in support thereof provides the explanation the Court requested as to why the time figures differ between the complaint and the opening statement.

The two figures describe two different things and are not contradictory.

The complaint's reference to "approximately 15 minutes" appears in Factual Allegation No. 4, which reads: "The Plaintiff worked actively for approximately 15 minutes writing the in-progress manuscript immediately prior to the murder." This figure describes the active in-game writing window immediately preceding the killing, nothing more.

The opening statement's reference to a broader time period described the total creative session on 20 February 2026, which encompassed research using materials in .CaldironJa1's library, preparation, and collaboration in addition to the active writing itself. These are distinct activities. The complaint never stated the total session lasted 15 minutes. It stated the active writing immediately before the murder lasted 15 minutes. The opening statement's phrasing did not accurately reflect this distinction, but the underlying facts are consistent.

The Plaintiff does not seek to argue that more than approximately 15 minutes of active writing was lost. That figure from the complaint stands. The Plaintiff asks only that the Court recognise the two figures were measuring different things and that no intentional misrepresentation was made.

The Plaintiff further notes that even if the estoppel remains in place, it does not diminish the damages claims. The value of destroyed literary property is not determined solely by the time taken to produce it. A commissioned work commands its value based on the agreement between the parties, the commercial purpose it serves, and the harm caused by its loss. Those factors remain unaffected regardless of how long the active writing window lasted.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court lift or clarify the estoppel accordingly.

DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

Defendant (CC: @Dartanboy) shall have 48 hours to respond.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IMPROPER EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff has submitted a significant amount of unverifiable evidence, notably:

"latest.txt"
and
"2026-02-20-03.txt"

are TEXT FILES. These are easily editable, and can be edited prior to uploading.

These should be inadmissable as evidence, as there is no way to confirm the authenticity of the so-called "logs." Only screenshots of in-game chat are permissible.

As such, we ask the following exhibits be struck:
P-001
P-006
P-007
P-009
P-010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

OBJECTION - COUNTER TO IMPROPER EVIDENCE (Post #43)

The Defendant's objection asks this Court to strike P-001, P-006, P-007, P-009, and P-010 solely on the basis that they are text files and therefore theoretically editable. This is insufficient grounds for exclusion.

The Improper Evidence objection requires evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately. The Defendant has not identified a single specific inconsistency, alteration, or irregularity in any of the contested exhibits. The objection rests entirely on the theoretical possibility of editing, not any demonstrated evidence of it.

Furthermore, the contested logs are corroborated independently. The kill confirmed in P-001 is corroborated by P-002, a death screen screenshot. The chat exchanges in P-006 are corroborated by P-003 and P-004, which are Discord screenshots. The Defendant has never denied making the statements attributed to him in those logs. P-009 and P-010 are corroborated by the testimony of .CaldironJa1, who will appear as a witness.

Should the Court have any remaining concerns regarding authenticity, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that server staff are able to independently verify all server records, including kill logs and chat logs, from their end. The Plaintiff welcomes any such verification the Court sees fit to request.

The Court should weigh any authenticity concerns when assessing the probative value of the exhibits at trial. Wholesale exclusion based on file type alone, without any showing of actual alteration, is not warranted. The objection should be overruled.


DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

Taken under advisement.

The District Court follows the guidance that the Supreme Court has set: “Logs can be useful as evidence, but they must be corroborated independently. Staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony as to their contents can do this.” (Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, Post No. 29). This is different than the absolute rule that “[o]nly screenshots of in-game chat are permissible”, as Defendant had proffered in objecting (Post No. 43).

Plaintiff has proffered that, in part, witness testimony will help to substantiate the logs. As Redmont lacks a mechanism to have something akin to evidentiary hearings separately from general witness testimony, the Court finds that it would be unduly prejudicial to strike the logs prior to the Plaintiff being possibly able to question and obtain testimony of witnesses who could plausibly provide verification as to the logs’ fidelity.

As such, the Court declines to provide final ruling on this objection until the conclusion of witness testimony.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Taken under advisement.

The District Court follows the guidance that the Supreme Court has set: “Logs can be useful as evidence, but they must be corroborated independently. Staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony as to their contents can do this.” (Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, Post No. 29). This is different than the absolute rule that “[o]nly screenshots of in-game chat are permissible”, as Defendant had proffered in objecting (Post No. 43).

Plaintiff has proffered that, in part, witness testimony will help to substantiate the logs. As Redmont lacks a mechanism to have something akin to evidentiary hearings separately from general witness testimony, the Court finds that it would be unduly prejudicial to strike the logs prior to the Plaintiff being possibly able to question and obtain testimony of witnesses who could plausibly provide verification as to the logs’ fidelity.

As such, the Court declines to provide final ruling on this objection until the conclusion of witness testimony.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

MOTION - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON EVIDENCE CORROBORATION

Your Honour, the Court's order in Post #56 noted that logs may be corroborated through "staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony" per Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification from the Court as to whether verification by server staff directly confirming the authenticity of the contested log files would satisfy the corroboration standard set out in ImzaKRD, either in addition to or in place of witness testimony.

The Plaintiff is prepared to seek such verification from server staff if the Court confirms it would be accepted as sufficient corroboration. This would allow the question of the logs' admissibility to be resolved efficiently without placing the burden entirely on witness testimony.

DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24​

MOTION - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON EVIDENCE CORROBORATION

Your Honour, the Court's order in Post #56 noted that logs may be corroborated through "staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony" per Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification from the Court as to whether verification by server staff directly confirming the authenticity of the contested log files would satisfy the corroboration standard set out in ImzaKRD, either in addition to or in place of witness testimony.

The Plaintiff is prepared to seek such verification from server staff if the Court confirms it would be accepted as sufficient corroboration. This would allow the question of the logs' admissibility to be resolved efficiently without placing the burden entirely on witness testimony.

DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

What matters is not the potentiality of staff verification in the record of this case but whether the entelechy of staff confirmation has been made perfect here. When such is not the case, as the Supreme Court found in the referenced case, mere potential does not save the party seeking to keep the evidence admitted. As Plaintiff has neither called server staff as a witness nor submitted staff ticket screenshots corroborating the logs, I am discarding that argument as academic.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

What matters is not the potentiality of staff verification in the record of this case but whether the entelechy of staff confirmation has been made perfect here. When such is not the case, as the Supreme Court found in the referenced case, mere potential does not save the party seeking to keep the evidence admitted. As Plaintiff has neither called server staff as a witness nor submitted staff ticket screenshots corroborating the logs, I am discarding that argument as academic.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO ADMIT SUPPLEMENTARY AUTHENTICATION EXHIBITS, FOR A BRIEF STAY TO OBTAIN REMAINING STAFF CONFIRMATIONS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ADD SERVER STAFF AS WITNESS​

The Plaintiff moves the Court to admit staff ticket transcripts and a certified translation as authentication exhibits for the contested log evidence, to grant a brief stay of proceedings to allow the Plaintiff to obtain staff confirmation of a small number of remaining unconfirmed entries, and in the alternative to add a server staff member to the witness list, and in support thereof alleges:

I. THE DEFENSE'S CONTEST TRIGGERS THE CONFIRMATION PROCEDURE UNDER SERVER POLICY

The DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy, under "General Chat Log Notes," states:

"Confirmation and warrants should not be used to 'just confirm'. Courts should assume they are correct unless there is conflict. If parties are contesting as to the validity of the logs, they can confirm."

When the Plaintiff sought early verification of the log files during the case, staff member xendeavour cited this exact policy, advising that pre-emptive confirmation was unnecessary because courts assume logs are correct "until contested." That caveat is now satisfied. The Defendant filed an Improper Evidence objection on 14 April 2026 (Post #43) expressly contesting the validity of P-001, P-006, P-007, P-009, and P-010 on the basis that the log files are theoretically editable. The confirmation procedure the policy contemplates has been triggered by the Defendant's own objection. The Plaintiff's earlier diligence in obtaining confirmation prior to the contest even being raised is not a procedural defect. It is evidence of good faith.

II. THE OBJECTION WAS FILED STRATEGICALLY LATE TO EXPLOIT A PROCEDURAL DISADVANTAGE OF THE DEFENSE'S OWN CREATION

The Improper Evidence objection (Post #43) was filed on 14 April 2026, 45 days after the log files were first attached to the case, and 16 days after discovery closed. This timing is not coincidental. It is the product of a deliberate choice.

The log files P-006 and P-007 were attached to the original complaint on 22 February 2026. The Defendant appeared and was represented throughout the entirety of discovery. The prior public defender, Babysoga4real, participated in discovery, responded to interrogatories, filed an Answer to Complaint, and made multiple submissions, never once raising a concern about the authenticity or admissibility of the log files. The objection that these files are "easily editable" was available from the moment they were filed. It was not raised.

Dartanboy entered the case on 13 April 2026 (Post #40) and filed the Improper Evidence objection the very next day (Post #43), before even filing an opening statement, and weeks after the window in which the Plaintiff could have responded to it within discovery had closed. Under Rule 4.2, material submitted post-discovery requires court permission to be admitted. By raising an authenticity objection at precisely the moment the Plaintiff faces the highest procedural barrier to answering it, the defense transformed what could have been a straightforward discovery dispute into a structural trap: the logs are contested, but the normal mechanism for corroborating them, which is submitting evidence in discovery, has been foreclosed by the defense's own delay.

This Court should not reward that tactic. The principle that procedural rules exist to bring order and fairness to proceedings and not to be wielded as weapons to ambush opposing parties is foundational to the administration of justice. Rule 1.6 states that all Court Rules "are made to bring order, clarity, and understanding to court proceedings." An objection held in reserve for 45 days and deployed at maximum procedural disadvantage to the opposing party is not consistent with that purpose.

The Plaintiff does not suggest the objection is made in bad faith. However, the Court should take the timing squarely into account when fashioning its remedy. A party who could have raised an objection during discovery and chose not to cannot then use the closure of discovery as a shield against the response that objection requires. The appropriate remedy is not to strike the logs. It is to give the Plaintiff a fair and reasonable opportunity to corroborate them, which is precisely what this motion seeks.

III. STAFF CONFIRMATION HAS ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED FOR THE MAJORITY OF CONTESTED ENTRIES AND IS NOW SUBMITTED

Prior to the Defendant's objection, the Plaintiff obtained independent staff confirmation of log entries through two support tickets with xendeavour, which are hereby submitted as authentication exhibits:

P-011 - Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026)

Staff member xendeavour confirmed the following entries from the submitted log files against DemocracyCraft server logs:

• [11:56:40] Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin ✓
• [12:11:00] .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405 ✓
• [12:11:56] .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my bysiness productivity." ✓
• [12:15:00-01] emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing" ✓
• [10:55:32] .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office ✓

P-012 - Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026)

Staff member xendeavour confirmed the following entries from latest.txt against server logs, stating explicitly: "This is all confirmed":

• [11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself! ✓
• [11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities ✓
• [12:03:09] emmythegremlin: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything" ✓
• [12:04:04] emmythegremlin: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc" ✓
• [12:06:08] roy405: "keep inventory is on lol" ✓
• [12:06:47] emmythegremlin: "keep inventory doesn't save books" ✓
• [12:08:15] emmythegremlin: "i lost five full pages of written stuff" ✓
• [12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy" ✓
• [12:11:05] roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing" ✓
• [12:14:10] emmythegremlin: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business" ✓
• [12:16:16] roy405: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u" ✓

These exhibits constitute "staff discussion" of the log contents as contemplated by Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, Post #29: "Logs can be useful as evidence, but they must be corroborated independently. Staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony as to their contents can do this."

These are not new substantive evidence. They authenticate material already properly submitted in discovery under Rule 4.6. This Court deferred its ruling on the Improper Evidence objection until after witness testimony (Post #56), and identified the precise gap in Post #58. P-011 and P-012 fill that gap for the majority of contested entries.

IV. A SMALL NUMBER OF ENTRIES REMAIN UNCONFIRMED - THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A BRIEF STAY AND SUBMITS A CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Xendeavour noted in ticket #29032 that he had not checked the 2026-02-20-3.txt entries, stating: "I haven't checked the rest unless its contested." That condition, a contest, has now been raised by the Defendant. The following entries from P-006 and P-007 remain unconfirmed by staff and are the subject of a pending staff ticket:

From latest.txt (P-006):

• [10:40:34] roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (P-007) - private DMs between emmythegremlin and .CaldironJa1:

• [10:42:05] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "só copiar e colar do docskk"
• [10:45:22] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "ta muito bom!!!"
• [10:46:14] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "pois devia, passou mt firmeza e repertório. esse livro vai ser babado"
• [10:56:27] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "aqui em cima, no quarto do llado do seu kkkk"

Regarding the private messages: the DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy states that in-game direct messages are "regarded as completely private" but that "with consent, the staff team can verify messages." Consent is present on both sides. emmythegremlin, as Plaintiff, consented to the use of these messages by uploading the log file containing them as evidence P-007. .CaldironJa1 is a listed witness for the Plaintiff who will testify to the contents of these communications at hearing. Staff may therefore verify these messages on a consent basis without a warrant.

The [10:40:34] global chat entry is confirmable by the same method as all other global chat entries already confirmed in P-012.

P-013 - Translation of P-007 Portuguese Log Entries

The Plaintiff further notes that P-007 as filed presents an English summary of the log entries for the Court's convenience. The verbatim content of those entries, as they appear in the attached log file 2026-02-20-3.txt, is in Portuguese. The Plaintiff hereby provides the verbatim text alongside translation for each entry, the accuracy of which will be confirmed by witness .CaldironJa1, a native Portuguese speaker and author of the messages attributed to him, at the time of his testimony. The Portuguese text is also provided so that server log searches may be conducted against the exact original text, as xendeavour noted in ticket #28704 that specific text terms are required for server log searches and paraphrased content cannot be searched:

• [10:42:05] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "só copiar e colar do docskk" - Translation: "just copy and paste from the doc lol"
• [10:45:22] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "ta muito bom!!!" - Translation: "it's really good!!!"
• [10:46:14] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "pois devia, passou mt firmeza e repertório. esse livro vai ser babado" - Translation: "it should be, it had a lot of substance and range. this book is going to be amazing"
• [10:56:27] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "aqui em cima, no quarto do llado do seu kkkk" - Translation: "up here, in the room next to yours lol"

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant a stay of 48 hours from the posting of this motion to allow the Plaintiff to submit the staff confirmation of the remaining unconfirmed entries as a further authentication exhibit (P-014). This is a narrow, targeted request. The entries in question support the pre-murder premeditation argument ([10:40:34]) and the authorised workspace context in P-007. Their confirmation would complete the corroboration record and allow the Court to rule on the Improper Evidence objection with a full evidentiary picture. No prejudice results to the Defendant from a 48-hour stay. The Defendant raised the objection that necessitates this process.

V. IN THE ALTERNATIVE - LEAVE TO ADD SERVER STAFF AS WITNESS

Should the Court decline to grant the stay, or should the Court find the ticket transcripts in P-011 and P-012 insufficient standing alone, the Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to add xendeavour (or another staff member with access to server chat logs) to the witness list notwithstanding the closure of discovery.

Rule 4.9 requires witnesses to be announced before the end of discovery. The Plaintiff acknowledges this. However, the Improper Evidence objection was filed on 14 April 2026, well after discovery closed on 30 March 2026. The Plaintiff could not have anticipated the need for live staff testimony before an objection that did not yet exist. This Court itself noted in Post #56 that it would be "unduly prejudicial" to strike the logs before the Plaintiff had an opportunity to corroborate them. The same logic applies here: it would be equally prejudicial to deny the Plaintiff a witness whose need arose solely from a post-discovery objection.

VI. SUMMARY OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AND REQUESTED

The following exhibits are submitted with this motion:

• P-011 - Screenshot of Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026): staff confirmation of five log entries from latest.txt and 2026-02-20-3.txt
• P-012 - Screenshot of Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026): staff confirmation of eleven log entries from latest.txt
• P-013 - Certified translation of P-007 Portuguese log entries with verbatim original text

The following exhibit is pending subject to the requested 48-hour stay:

• P-014 - Staff confirmation of [10:40:34] from latest.txt and [10:42:05], [10:45:22], [10:46:14], [10:56:27] from 2026-02-20-3.txt, to be submitted upon receipt from server staff

VII. CONCLUSION

P-011 and P-012 demonstrate that the majority of contested log entries have already been independently confirmed by a named staff member against server-side records. P-013 formally places the verbatim Portuguese text and its translation on the record, bridging the gap between the English summary filed as P-007 and the attached log file. The corroboration standard of ImzaKRD is satisfied for all entries covered by P-011 and P-012. The Plaintiff requests 48 hours to complete the confirmation record via P-014, after which the Court will have a complete and verified evidentiary foundation on which to rule on the Improper Evidence objection. In the alternative, leave to add server staff to the witness list is sought on the narrow ground that the objection creating that need arose after discovery closed.

DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

Spoiler: P-011 - Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026)

Source: DemocracyCraft Staff Ticket #28704
Date: 8 to 11 March 2026
Staff Member: xendeavour

Entries submitted for verification (pingspoofed, 8 March 2026, 14:50):

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (earlier session log)

[10:55:32] - .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office
[10:40:34] - roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"
[10:45:22-10:46:14] - .CaldironJa1 praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:52] - System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

From latest.txt (murder session log)

[11:56:40] - Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin
[12:06:08] - roy405: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:09:43] - IamJeb_ confirming 5 pages of work were removed
[12:11:00] - .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405
[12:11:56] - .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity."
[12:15:00-01] - emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing"
[12:11:05] - roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"

Staff response (xendeavour, 9 March 2026, 12:38):

[10:55:32] - .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office [CONFIRMED]
[10:40:34] - roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"
[10:45:22-10:46:14] - .CaldironJa1 praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:52] - System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

From latest.txt (murder session log)

[11:56:40] - Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin [CONFIRMED]
[12:06:08] - roy405: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:09:43] - IamJeb_ confirming 5 pages of work were removed
[12:11:00] - .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405 [CONFIRMED]
[12:11:56] - .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity." [CONFIRMED]
[12:15:00-01] - emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing" [CONFIRMED]
[12:11:05] - roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"

Staff notes (xendeavour, 9 March 2026, 12:38-12:41):

"I could find logs of the ticks. But I was checking chat logs.
Not all client logs appear on server logs."

"I can search specific text terms, not searching for paraphrased stuff."

"Just because I havent ticked it doesnt mean it doesnt exist,
it just means I would need to look harder to find it."

Spoiler: P-012 - Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026)

Source: DemocracyCraft Staff Ticket #29032
Date: 23 March 2026
Staff Member: xendeavour

Entries submitted for verification (pingspoofed(xXTheoryXx), 23 March 2026, 12:27):

From latest.txt (P-006):

[11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!
[11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities
[12:03:09] Emmy: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything"
[12:04:04] Emmy: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc"
[12:06:08] Roy: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:06:47] Emmy: "keep inventory doesn't save books"
[12:08:15] Emmy: "i lost five full pages of written stuff"
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy"
[12:11:05] Roy: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"
[12:14:10] Emmy: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business"
[12:16:16] Roy: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u."

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (P-007):

[10:42:05] Emmy copying from Google Doc into game
[10:45:22-10:46:14] Caldiron praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:27] "the room next to yours"
[10:56:52] System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

Staff policy cited by xendeavour (23 March 2026, 14:58):

"Confirmation and warrants should not be used to 'just confirm'.
Courts should assume they are correct unless there is conflict.
If parties are contesting as to the validity of the logs, they can confirm
(or get a warrant/court order to confirm), and the Staff Team will punish
malicious individuals under our impersonation policy."

- DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy, General Chat Log Notes

Staff statement on assumption of correctness (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

"Ok I get that you are being a good lawyer, thats great - however, its causing
staff a heap of unnecessary work because the court will assume its correct
until contested."

Staff confirmation of latest.txt entries (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

[12:03:09] Emmy: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything"
[12:04:04] Emmy: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc"
[12:06:08] Roy: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:06:47] Emmy: "keep inventory doesn't save books"
[12:08:15] Emmy: "i lost five full pages of written stuff"
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy"
[12:11:05] Roy: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"
[12:14:10] Emmy: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business"
[12:16:16] Roy: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u."

"This is all confirmed."

Staff note on remaining P-007 entries (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

"I havent checked the rest unless its contested."

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO ADMIT SUPPLEMENTARY AUTHENTICATION EXHIBITS, FOR A BRIEF STAY TO OBTAIN REMAINING STAFF CONFIRMATIONS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ADD SERVER STAFF AS WITNESS​

The Plaintiff moves the Court to admit staff ticket transcripts and a certified translation as authentication exhibits for the contested log evidence, to grant a brief stay of proceedings to allow the Plaintiff to obtain staff confirmation of a small number of remaining unconfirmed entries, and in the alternative to add a server staff member to the witness list, and in support thereof alleges:

I. THE DEFENSE'S CONTEST TRIGGERS THE CONFIRMATION PROCEDURE UNDER SERVER POLICY

The DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy, under "General Chat Log Notes," states:

"Confirmation and warrants should not be used to 'just confirm'. Courts should assume they are correct unless there is conflict. If parties are contesting as to the validity of the logs, they can confirm."

When the Plaintiff sought early verification of the log files during the case, staff member xendeavour cited this exact policy, advising that pre-emptive confirmation was unnecessary because courts assume logs are correct "until contested." That caveat is now satisfied. The Defendant filed an Improper Evidence objection on 14 April 2026 (Post #43) expressly contesting the validity of P-001, P-006, P-007, P-009, and P-010 on the basis that the log files are theoretically editable. The confirmation procedure the policy contemplates has been triggered by the Defendant's own objection. The Plaintiff's earlier diligence in obtaining confirmation prior to the contest even being raised is not a procedural defect. It is evidence of good faith.

II. THE OBJECTION WAS FILED STRATEGICALLY LATE TO EXPLOIT A PROCEDURAL DISADVANTAGE OF THE DEFENSE'S OWN CREATION

The Improper Evidence objection (Post #43) was filed on 14 April 2026, 45 days after the log files were first attached to the case, and 16 days after discovery closed. This timing is not coincidental. It is the product of a deliberate choice.

The log files P-006 and P-007 were attached to the original complaint on 22 February 2026. The Defendant appeared and was represented throughout the entirety of discovery. The prior public defender, Babysoga4real, participated in discovery, responded to interrogatories, filed an Answer to Complaint, and made multiple submissions, never once raising a concern about the authenticity or admissibility of the log files. The objection that these files are "easily editable" was available from the moment they were filed. It was not raised.

Dartanboy entered the case on 13 April 2026 (Post #40) and filed the Improper Evidence objection the very next day (Post #43), before even filing an opening statement, and weeks after the window in which the Plaintiff could have responded to it within discovery had closed. Under Rule 4.2, material submitted post-discovery requires court permission to be admitted. By raising an authenticity objection at precisely the moment the Plaintiff faces the highest procedural barrier to answering it, the defense transformed what could have been a straightforward discovery dispute into a structural trap: the logs are contested, but the normal mechanism for corroborating them, which is submitting evidence in discovery, has been foreclosed by the defense's own delay.

This Court should not reward that tactic. The principle that procedural rules exist to bring order and fairness to proceedings and not to be wielded as weapons to ambush opposing parties is foundational to the administration of justice. Rule 1.6 states that all Court Rules "are made to bring order, clarity, and understanding to court proceedings." An objection held in reserve for 45 days and deployed at maximum procedural disadvantage to the opposing party is not consistent with that purpose.

The Plaintiff does not suggest the objection is made in bad faith. However, the Court should take the timing squarely into account when fashioning its remedy. A party who could have raised an objection during discovery and chose not to cannot then use the closure of discovery as a shield against the response that objection requires. The appropriate remedy is not to strike the logs. It is to give the Plaintiff a fair and reasonable opportunity to corroborate them, which is precisely what this motion seeks.

III. STAFF CONFIRMATION HAS ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED FOR THE MAJORITY OF CONTESTED ENTRIES AND IS NOW SUBMITTED

Prior to the Defendant's objection, the Plaintiff obtained independent staff confirmation of log entries through two support tickets with xendeavour, which are hereby submitted as authentication exhibits:

P-011 - Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026)

Staff member xendeavour confirmed the following entries from the submitted log files against DemocracyCraft server logs:

• [11:56:40] Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin ✓
• [12:11:00] .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405 ✓
• [12:11:56] .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my bysiness productivity." ✓
• [12:15:00-01] emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing" ✓
• [10:55:32] .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office ✓

P-012 - Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026)

Staff member xendeavour confirmed the following entries from latest.txt against server logs, stating explicitly: "This is all confirmed":

• [11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself! ✓
• [11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities ✓
• [12:03:09] emmythegremlin: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything" ✓
• [12:04:04] emmythegremlin: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc" ✓
• [12:06:08] roy405: "keep inventory is on lol" ✓
• [12:06:47] emmythegremlin: "keep inventory doesn't save books" ✓
• [12:08:15] emmythegremlin: "i lost five full pages of written stuff" ✓
• [12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy" ✓
• [12:11:05] roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing" ✓
• [12:14:10] emmythegremlin: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business" ✓
• [12:16:16] roy405: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u" ✓

These exhibits constitute "staff discussion" of the log contents as contemplated by Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, Post #29: "Logs can be useful as evidence, but they must be corroborated independently. Staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony as to their contents can do this."

These are not new substantive evidence. They authenticate material already properly submitted in discovery under Rule 4.6. This Court deferred its ruling on the Improper Evidence objection until after witness testimony (Post #56), and identified the precise gap in Post #58. P-011 and P-012 fill that gap for the majority of contested entries.

IV. A SMALL NUMBER OF ENTRIES REMAIN UNCONFIRMED - THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A BRIEF STAY AND SUBMITS A CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Xendeavour noted in ticket #29032 that he had not checked the 2026-02-20-3.txt entries, stating: "I haven't checked the rest unless its contested." That condition, a contest, has now been raised by the Defendant. The following entries from P-006 and P-007 remain unconfirmed by staff and are the subject of a pending staff ticket:

From latest.txt (P-006):

• [10:40:34] roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (P-007) - private DMs between emmythegremlin and .CaldironJa1:

• [10:42:05] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "só copiar e colar do docskk"
• [10:45:22] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "ta muito bom!!!"
• [10:46:14] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "pois devia, passou mt firmeza e repertório. esse livro vai ser babado"
• [10:56:27] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "aqui em cima, no quarto do llado do seu kkkk"

Regarding the private messages: the DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy states that in-game direct messages are "regarded as completely private" but that "with consent, the staff team can verify messages." Consent is present on both sides. emmythegremlin, as Plaintiff, consented to the use of these messages by uploading the log file containing them as evidence P-007. .CaldironJa1 is a listed witness for the Plaintiff who will testify to the contents of these communications at hearing. Staff may therefore verify these messages on a consent basis without a warrant.

The [10:40:34] global chat entry is confirmable by the same method as all other global chat entries already confirmed in P-012.

P-013 - Translation of P-007 Portuguese Log Entries

The Plaintiff further notes that P-007 as filed presents an English summary of the log entries for the Court's convenience. The verbatim content of those entries, as they appear in the attached log file 2026-02-20-3.txt, is in Portuguese. The Plaintiff hereby provides the verbatim text alongside translation for each entry, the accuracy of which will be confirmed by witness .CaldironJa1, a native Portuguese speaker and author of the messages attributed to him, at the time of his testimony. The Portuguese text is also provided so that server log searches may be conducted against the exact original text, as xendeavour noted in ticket #28704 that specific text terms are required for server log searches and paraphrased content cannot be searched:

• [10:42:05] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "só copiar e colar do docskk" - Translation: "just copy and paste from the doc lol"
• [10:45:22] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "ta muito bom!!!" - Translation: "it's really good!!!"
• [10:46:14] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "pois devia, passou mt firmeza e repertório. esse livro vai ser babado" - Translation: "it should be, it had a lot of substance and range. this book is going to be amazing"
• [10:56:27] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "aqui em cima, no quarto do llado do seu kkkk" - Translation: "up here, in the room next to yours lol"

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant a stay of 48 hours from the posting of this motion to allow the Plaintiff to submit the staff confirmation of the remaining unconfirmed entries as a further authentication exhibit (P-014). This is a narrow, targeted request. The entries in question support the pre-murder premeditation argument ([10:40:34]) and the authorised workspace context in P-007. Their confirmation would complete the corroboration record and allow the Court to rule on the Improper Evidence objection with a full evidentiary picture. No prejudice results to the Defendant from a 48-hour stay. The Defendant raised the objection that necessitates this process.

V. IN THE ALTERNATIVE - LEAVE TO ADD SERVER STAFF AS WITNESS

Should the Court decline to grant the stay, or should the Court find the ticket transcripts in P-011 and P-012 insufficient standing alone, the Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to add xendeavour (or another staff member with access to server chat logs) to the witness list notwithstanding the closure of discovery.

Rule 4.9 requires witnesses to be announced before the end of discovery. The Plaintiff acknowledges this. However, the Improper Evidence objection was filed on 14 April 2026, well after discovery closed on 30 March 2026. The Plaintiff could not have anticipated the need for live staff testimony before an objection that did not yet exist. This Court itself noted in Post #56 that it would be "unduly prejudicial" to strike the logs before the Plaintiff had an opportunity to corroborate them. The same logic applies here: it would be equally prejudicial to deny the Plaintiff a witness whose need arose solely from a post-discovery objection.

VI. SUMMARY OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AND REQUESTED

The following exhibits are submitted with this motion:

• P-011 - Screenshot of Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026): staff confirmation of five log entries from latest.txt and 2026-02-20-3.txt
• P-012 - Screenshot of Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026): staff confirmation of eleven log entries from latest.txt
• P-013 - Certified translation of P-007 Portuguese log entries with verbatim original text

The following exhibit is pending subject to the requested 48-hour stay:

• P-014 - Staff confirmation of [10:40:34] from latest.txt and [10:42:05], [10:45:22], [10:46:14], [10:56:27] from 2026-02-20-3.txt, to be submitted upon receipt from server staff

VII. CONCLUSION

P-011 and P-012 demonstrate that the majority of contested log entries have already been independently confirmed by a named staff member against server-side records. P-013 formally places the verbatim Portuguese text and its translation on the record, bridging the gap between the English summary filed as P-007 and the attached log file. The corroboration standard of ImzaKRD is satisfied for all entries covered by P-011 and P-012. The Plaintiff requests 48 hours to complete the confirmation record via P-014, after which the Court will have a complete and verified evidentiary foundation on which to rule on the Improper Evidence objection. In the alternative, leave to add server staff to the witness list is sought on the narrow ground that the objection creating that need arose after discovery closed.

DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

Spoiler: P-011 - Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026)

Source: DemocracyCraft Staff Ticket #28704
Date: 8 to 11 March 2026
Staff Member: xendeavour

Entries submitted for verification (pingspoofed, 8 March 2026, 14:50):

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (earlier session log)

[10:55:32] - .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office
[10:40:34] - roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"
[10:45:22-10:46:14] - .CaldironJa1 praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:52] - System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

From latest.txt (murder session log)

[11:56:40] - Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin
[12:06:08] - roy405: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:09:43] - IamJeb_ confirming 5 pages of work were removed
[12:11:00] - .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405
[12:11:56] - .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity."
[12:15:00-01] - emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing"
[12:11:05] - roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"

Staff response (xendeavour, 9 March 2026, 12:38):

[10:55:32] - .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office [CONFIRMED]
[10:40:34] - roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"
[10:45:22-10:46:14] - .CaldironJa1 praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:52] - System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

From latest.txt (murder session log)

[11:56:40] - Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin [CONFIRMED]
[12:06:08] - roy405: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:09:43] - IamJeb_ confirming 5 pages of work were removed
[12:11:00] - .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405 [CONFIRMED]
[12:11:56] - .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity." [CONFIRMED]
[12:15:00-01] - emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing" [CONFIRMED]
[12:11:05] - roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"

Staff notes (xendeavour, 9 March 2026, 12:38-12:41):

"I could find logs of the ticks. But I was checking chat logs.
Not all client logs appear on server logs."

"I can search specific text terms, not searching for paraphrased stuff."

"Just because I havent ticked it doesnt mean it doesnt exist,
it just means I would need to look harder to find it."

Spoiler: P-012 - Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026)

Source: DemocracyCraft Staff Ticket #29032
Date: 23 March 2026
Staff Member: xendeavour

Entries submitted for verification (pingspoofed(xXTheoryXx), 23 March 2026, 12:27):

From latest.txt (P-006):

[11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!
[11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities
[12:03:09] Emmy: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything"
[12:04:04] Emmy: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc"
[12:06:08] Roy: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:06:47] Emmy: "keep inventory doesn't save books"
[12:08:15] Emmy: "i lost five full pages of written stuff"
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy"
[12:11:05] Roy: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"
[12:14:10] Emmy: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business"
[12:16:16] Roy: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u."

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (P-007):

[10:42:05] Emmy copying from Google Doc into game
[10:45:22-10:46:14] Caldiron praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:27] "the room next to yours"
[10:56:52] System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

Staff policy cited by xendeavour (23 March 2026, 14:58):

"Confirmation and warrants should not be used to 'just confirm'.
Courts should assume they are correct unless there is conflict.
If parties are contesting as to the validity of the logs, they can confirm
(or get a warrant/court order to confirm), and the Staff Team will punish
malicious individuals under our impersonation policy."

- DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy, General Chat Log Notes

Staff statement on assumption of correctness (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

"Ok I get that you are being a good lawyer, thats great - however, its causing
staff a heap of unnecessary work because the court will assume its correct
until contested."

Staff confirmation of latest.txt entries (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

[12:03:09] Emmy: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything"
[12:04:04] Emmy: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc"
[12:06:08] Roy: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:06:47] Emmy: "keep inventory doesn't save books"
[12:08:15] Emmy: "i lost five full pages of written stuff"
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy"
[12:11:05] Roy: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"
[12:14:10] Emmy: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business"
[12:16:16] Roy: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u."

"This is all confirmed."

Staff note on remaining P-007 entries (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

"I havent checked the rest unless its contested."

Defendant (CC @Dartanboy) shall have 48 hours to respond.

 

[Dartanboy]

Neutral third party IamJeb_ independently corroborated: "killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy." The Rule 5.5 threshold is not approached.

Objection

HEARSAY

IamJeb_ has not testified to this.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

MOTION TO ADMIT SUPPLEMENTARY AUTHENTICATION EXHIBITS, FOR A BRIEF STAY TO OBTAIN REMAINING STAFF CONFIRMATIONS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ADD SERVER STAFF AS WITNESS​

The Plaintiff moves the Court to admit staff ticket transcripts and a certified translation as authentication exhibits for the contested log evidence, to grant a brief stay of proceedings to allow the Plaintiff to obtain staff confirmation of a small number of remaining unconfirmed entries, and in the alternative to add a server staff member to the witness list, and in support thereof alleges:

I. THE DEFENSE'S CONTEST TRIGGERS THE CONFIRMATION PROCEDURE UNDER SERVER POLICY

The DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy, under "General Chat Log Notes," states:

"Confirmation and warrants should not be used to 'just confirm'. Courts should assume they are correct unless there is conflict. If parties are contesting as to the validity of the logs, they can confirm."

When the Plaintiff sought early verification of the log files during the case, staff member xendeavour cited this exact policy, advising that pre-emptive confirmation was unnecessary because courts assume logs are correct "until contested." That caveat is now satisfied. The Defendant filed an Improper Evidence objection on 14 April 2026 (Post #43) expressly contesting the validity of P-001, P-006, P-007, P-009, and P-010 on the basis that the log files are theoretically editable. The confirmation procedure the policy contemplates has been triggered by the Defendant's own objection. The Plaintiff's earlier diligence in obtaining confirmation prior to the contest even being raised is not a procedural defect. It is evidence of good faith.

II. THE OBJECTION WAS FILED STRATEGICALLY LATE TO EXPLOIT A PROCEDURAL DISADVANTAGE OF THE DEFENSE'S OWN CREATION

The Improper Evidence objection (Post #43) was filed on 14 April 2026, 45 days after the log files were first attached to the case, and 16 days after discovery closed. This timing is not coincidental. It is the product of a deliberate choice.

The log files P-006 and P-007 were attached to the original complaint on 22 February 2026. The Defendant appeared and was represented throughout the entirety of discovery. The prior public defender, Babysoga4real, participated in discovery, responded to interrogatories, filed an Answer to Complaint, and made multiple submissions, never once raising a concern about the authenticity or admissibility of the log files. The objection that these files are "easily editable" was available from the moment they were filed. It was not raised.

Dartanboy entered the case on 13 April 2026 (Post #40) and filed the Improper Evidence objection the very next day (Post #43), before even filing an opening statement, and weeks after the window in which the Plaintiff could have responded to it within discovery had closed. Under Rule 4.2, material submitted post-discovery requires court permission to be admitted. By raising an authenticity objection at precisely the moment the Plaintiff faces the highest procedural barrier to answering it, the defense transformed what could have been a straightforward discovery dispute into a structural trap: the logs are contested, but the normal mechanism for corroborating them, which is submitting evidence in discovery, has been foreclosed by the defense's own delay.

This Court should not reward that tactic. The principle that procedural rules exist to bring order and fairness to proceedings and not to be wielded as weapons to ambush opposing parties is foundational to the administration of justice. Rule 1.6 states that all Court Rules "are made to bring order, clarity, and understanding to court proceedings." An objection held in reserve for 45 days and deployed at maximum procedural disadvantage to the opposing party is not consistent with that purpose.

The Plaintiff does not suggest the objection is made in bad faith. However, the Court should take the timing squarely into account when fashioning its remedy. A party who could have raised an objection during discovery and chose not to cannot then use the closure of discovery as a shield against the response that objection requires. The appropriate remedy is not to strike the logs. It is to give the Plaintiff a fair and reasonable opportunity to corroborate them, which is precisely what this motion seeks.

III. STAFF CONFIRMATION HAS ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED FOR THE MAJORITY OF CONTESTED ENTRIES AND IS NOW SUBMITTED

Prior to the Defendant's objection, the Plaintiff obtained independent staff confirmation of log entries through two support tickets with xendeavour, which are hereby submitted as authentication exhibits:

P-011 - Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026)

Staff member xendeavour confirmed the following entries from the submitted log files against DemocracyCraft server logs:

• [11:56:40] Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin ✓
• [12:11:00] .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405 ✓
• [12:11:56] .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my bysiness productivity." ✓
• [12:15:00-01] emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing" ✓
• [10:55:32] .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office ✓

P-012 - Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026)

Staff member xendeavour confirmed the following entries from latest.txt against server logs, stating explicitly: "This is all confirmed":

• [11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself! ✓
• [11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities ✓
• [12:03:09] emmythegremlin: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything" ✓
• [12:04:04] emmythegremlin: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc" ✓
• [12:06:08] roy405: "keep inventory is on lol" ✓
• [12:06:47] emmythegremlin: "keep inventory doesn't save books" ✓
• [12:08:15] emmythegremlin: "i lost five full pages of written stuff" ✓
• [12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy" ✓
• [12:11:05] roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing" ✓
• [12:14:10] emmythegremlin: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business" ✓
• [12:16:16] roy405: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u" ✓

These exhibits constitute "staff discussion" of the log contents as contemplated by Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, Post #29: "Logs can be useful as evidence, but they must be corroborated independently. Staff discussion, posting, or witness testimony as to their contents can do this."

These are not new substantive evidence. They authenticate material already properly submitted in discovery under Rule 4.6. This Court deferred its ruling on the Improper Evidence objection until after witness testimony (Post #56), and identified the precise gap in Post #58. P-011 and P-012 fill that gap for the majority of contested entries.

IV. A SMALL NUMBER OF ENTRIES REMAIN UNCONFIRMED - THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A BRIEF STAY AND SUBMITS A CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Xendeavour noted in ticket #29032 that he had not checked the 2026-02-20-3.txt entries, stating: "I haven't checked the rest unless its contested." That condition, a contest, has now been raised by the Defendant. The following entries from P-006 and P-007 remain unconfirmed by staff and are the subject of a pending staff ticket:

From latest.txt (P-006):

• [10:40:34] roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (P-007) - private DMs between emmythegremlin and .CaldironJa1:

• [10:42:05] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "só copiar e colar do docskk"
• [10:45:22] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "ta muito bom!!!"
• [10:46:14] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "pois devia, passou mt firmeza e repertório. esse livro vai ser babado"
• [10:56:27] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "aqui em cima, no quarto do llado do seu kkkk"

Regarding the private messages: the DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy states that in-game direct messages are "regarded as completely private" but that "with consent, the staff team can verify messages." Consent is present on both sides. emmythegremlin, as Plaintiff, consented to the use of these messages by uploading the log file containing them as evidence P-007. .CaldironJa1 is a listed witness for the Plaintiff who will testify to the contents of these communications at hearing. Staff may therefore verify these messages on a consent basis without a warrant.

The [10:40:34] global chat entry is confirmable by the same method as all other global chat entries already confirmed in P-012.

P-013 - Translation of P-007 Portuguese Log Entries

The Plaintiff further notes that P-007 as filed presents an English summary of the log entries for the Court's convenience. The verbatim content of those entries, as they appear in the attached log file 2026-02-20-3.txt, is in Portuguese. The Plaintiff hereby provides the verbatim text alongside translation for each entry, the accuracy of which will be confirmed by witness .CaldironJa1, a native Portuguese speaker and author of the messages attributed to him, at the time of his testimony. The Portuguese text is also provided so that server log searches may be conducted against the exact original text, as xendeavour noted in ticket #28704 that specific text terms are required for server log searches and paraphrased content cannot be searched:

• [10:42:05] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "só copiar e colar do docskk" - Translation: "just copy and paste from the doc lol"
• [10:45:22] emmythegremlin to .CaldironJa1: "ta muito bom!!!" - Translation: "it's really good!!!"
• [10:46:14] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "pois devia, passou mt firmeza e repertório. esse livro vai ser babado" - Translation: "it should be, it had a lot of substance and range. this book is going to be amazing"
• [10:56:27] .CaldironJa1 to emmythegremlin: "aqui em cima, no quarto do llado do seu kkkk" - Translation: "up here, in the room next to yours lol"

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant a stay of 48 hours from the posting of this motion to allow the Plaintiff to submit the staff confirmation of the remaining unconfirmed entries as a further authentication exhibit (P-014). This is a narrow, targeted request. The entries in question support the pre-murder premeditation argument ([10:40:34]) and the authorised workspace context in P-007. Their confirmation would complete the corroboration record and allow the Court to rule on the Improper Evidence objection with a full evidentiary picture. No prejudice results to the Defendant from a 48-hour stay. The Defendant raised the objection that necessitates this process.

V. IN THE ALTERNATIVE - LEAVE TO ADD SERVER STAFF AS WITNESS

Should the Court decline to grant the stay, or should the Court find the ticket transcripts in P-011 and P-012 insufficient standing alone, the Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to add xendeavour (or another staff member with access to server chat logs) to the witness list notwithstanding the closure of discovery.

Rule 4.9 requires witnesses to be announced before the end of discovery. The Plaintiff acknowledges this. However, the Improper Evidence objection was filed on 14 April 2026, well after discovery closed on 30 March 2026. The Plaintiff could not have anticipated the need for live staff testimony before an objection that did not yet exist. This Court itself noted in Post #56 that it would be "unduly prejudicial" to strike the logs before the Plaintiff had an opportunity to corroborate them. The same logic applies here: it would be equally prejudicial to deny the Plaintiff a witness whose need arose solely from a post-discovery objection.

VI. SUMMARY OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AND REQUESTED

The following exhibits are submitted with this motion:

• P-011 - Screenshot of Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026): staff confirmation of five log entries from latest.txt and 2026-02-20-3.txt
• P-012 - Screenshot of Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026): staff confirmation of eleven log entries from latest.txt
• P-013 - Certified translation of P-007 Portuguese log entries with verbatim original text

The following exhibit is pending subject to the requested 48-hour stay:

• P-014 - Staff confirmation of [10:40:34] from latest.txt and [10:42:05], [10:45:22], [10:46:14], [10:56:27] from 2026-02-20-3.txt, to be submitted upon receipt from server staff

VII. CONCLUSION

P-011 and P-012 demonstrate that the majority of contested log entries have already been independently confirmed by a named staff member against server-side records. P-013 formally places the verbatim Portuguese text and its translation on the record, bridging the gap between the English summary filed as P-007 and the attached log file. The corroboration standard of ImzaKRD is satisfied for all entries covered by P-011 and P-012. The Plaintiff requests 48 hours to complete the confirmation record via P-014, after which the Court will have a complete and verified evidentiary foundation on which to rule on the Improper Evidence objection. In the alternative, leave to add server staff to the witness list is sought on the narrow ground that the objection creating that need arose after discovery closed.

DATED: This 15th day of April, 2026

Spoiler: P-011 - Staff Ticket #28704 (8 to 11 March 2026)

Source: DemocracyCraft Staff Ticket #28704
Date: 8 to 11 March 2026
Staff Member: xendeavour

Entries submitted for verification (pingspoofed, 8 March 2026, 14:50):

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (earlier session log)

[10:55:32] - .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office
[10:40:34] - roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"
[10:45:22-10:46:14] - .CaldironJa1 praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:52] - System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

From latest.txt (murder session log)

[11:56:40] - Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin
[12:06:08] - roy405: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:09:43] - IamJeb_ confirming 5 pages of work were removed
[12:11:00] - .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405
[12:11:56] - .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity."
[12:15:00-01] - emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing"
[12:11:05] - roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"

Staff response (xendeavour, 9 March 2026, 12:38):

[10:55:32] - .CaldironJa1 inviting emmythegremlin to his office [CONFIRMED]
[10:40:34] - roy405: "i was gonna kill him allegedly / was waiting for my murder limit thing"
[10:45:22-10:46:14] - .CaldironJa1 praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:52] - System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

From latest.txt (murder session log)

[11:56:40] - Kill event: roy405 killed emmythegremlin [CONFIRMED]
[12:06:08] - roy405: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:09:43] - IamJeb_ confirming 5 pages of work were removed
[12:11:00] - .CaldironJa1 ban notice to roy405 [CONFIRMED]
[12:11:56] - .CaldironJa1: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity." [CONFIRMED]
[12:15:00-01] - emmythegremlin: "book in hand" / roy405: "means nothing" [CONFIRMED]
[12:11:05] - roy405: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"

Staff notes (xendeavour, 9 March 2026, 12:38-12:41):

"I could find logs of the ticks. But I was checking chat logs.
Not all client logs appear on server logs."

"I can search specific text terms, not searching for paraphrased stuff."

"Just because I havent ticked it doesnt mean it doesnt exist,
it just means I would need to look harder to find it."

Spoiler: P-012 - Staff Ticket #29032 (23 March 2026)

Source: DemocracyCraft Staff Ticket #29032
Date: 23 March 2026
Staff Member: xendeavour

Entries submitted for verification (pingspoofed(xXTheoryXx), 23 March 2026, 12:27):

From latest.txt (P-006):

[11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!
[11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities
[12:03:09] Emmy: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything"
[12:04:04] Emmy: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc"
[12:06:08] Roy: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:06:47] Emmy: "keep inventory doesn't save books"
[12:08:15] Emmy: "i lost five full pages of written stuff"
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy"
[12:11:05] Roy: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"
[12:14:10] Emmy: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business"
[12:16:16] Roy: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u."

From 2026-02-20-3.txt (P-007):

[10:42:05] Emmy copying from Google Doc into game
[10:45:22-10:46:14] Caldiron praising the work ("like an academic article" / "babado")
[10:56:27] "the room next to yours"
[10:56:52] System: "This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1"

Staff policy cited by xendeavour (23 March 2026, 14:58):

"Confirmation and warrants should not be used to 'just confirm'.
Courts should assume they are correct unless there is conflict.
If parties are contesting as to the validity of the logs, they can confirm
(or get a warrant/court order to confirm), and the Staff Team will punish
malicious individuals under our impersonation policy."

- DemocracyCraft Staff Warrant Policy, General Chat Log Notes

Staff statement on assumption of correctness (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

"Ok I get that you are being a good lawyer, thats great - however, its causing
staff a heap of unnecessary work because the court will assume its correct
until contested."

Staff confirmation of latest.txt entries (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

[12:03:09] Emmy: "because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything"
[12:04:04] Emmy: "you're lucky i had a save on a google doc"
[12:06:08] Roy: "keep inventory is on lol"
[12:06:47] Emmy: "keep inventory doesn't save books"
[12:08:15] Emmy: "i lost five full pages of written stuff"
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy"
[12:11:05] Roy: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing"
[12:14:10] Emmy: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business"
[12:16:16] Roy: "ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u."

"This is all confirmed."

Staff note on remaining P-007 entries (xendeavour, 23 March 2026, 15:00):

"I havent checked the rest unless its contested."

It was not filed late strategically, your honor. It occurred when I became counsel.

Nonetheless, I am satisfied with the legitimacy of the logs now. I was unaware of this new policy.