Lawsuit: In Session smellyboi5 v. AirMailmedl814 [2026] DCR 87

[Ediyto_]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

smellyboi5 (Represented by Ediyto of Summit Law Firm)

Plaintiff

v.

AirMailmedl814

Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On June 18, 2026, AirMailmedl814 contacted me via private messaging demanding that I hand over property for his mafia group, specifically stating he wanted "1 shulk." When I questioned him about his mafia affiliation, the Defendant explicitly threatened my life, stating unambiguously: "Ill pay you with your lif".

Immediately surrounding this threat, the Defendant escalated the situation to physical violence by drawing a firearm and shooting me. Fearing for my life and under severe physical duress from both the gunfire and the death threat, my shulker box of beer was unlawfully taken. The market value of the shulker box and its contents is worth up to $5,000DC. Because the Defendant used active firearm violence and illegal mafia extortion tactics to permanently deprive me of my property, I am bringing this matter to court to demand full restitution, treble damages, and severe punitive fines.

-- smellyboi5

I. PARTIES

1. smellyboi5 (Plaintiff)
2. AirMailmedl814 (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On June 18, 2026, the Defendant initiated a conversation with the Plaintiff via private chat, declaring an item was "it for my mafia" and explicitly demanding "1 shulk". (Evidence: P-01)
2. The Plaintiff questioned the Defendant regarding the specific identity of this mafia group.
3. In response to inquiries regarding the transfer of the shulker, the Defendant issued an explicit, direct threat to the Plaintiff's life, stating "Ill pay you with your lif". (Evidence: P-02)
4. Following the explicit threat, the Defendant produced a firearm and actively shot the Plaintiff, inflicting physical harm and severe duress.
5. The Defendant utilized this combined display of physical firearm violence and textual intimidation to bypass lawful consent and extract the property from the Plaintiff.
6. The Defendant successfully took possession of the one (1) shulker box of beer, carrying an estimated market value of up to $5,000DC.
7. The Defendant has failed and continues to fail to return the shulker box of beer or offer lawful currency, constituting an ongoing, permanent deprivation of the Plaintiff's property.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Extortion

Theft Criminalization Act §29

Under the Theft Criminalization Act §29, an entity commits an offense if they compel or induce another individual to deliver property by means of instilling a fear that the actor will cause physical injury. The Defendant's explicit statement, "Ill pay you with your lif," combined with actively discharging a firearm into the Plaintiff, constitutes an undeniable use of force and fear to compel compliance.

The property was surrendered under absolute physical and mental duress, fulfilling every statutory element of Extortion.

2. Battery

Redmont Civil Code Act

A civil Battery occurs when a party intentionally and unlawfully inflicts harmful or offensive physical contact upon another individual without their consent. By discharging a firearm and shooting the Plaintiff, the Defendant committed an unprovoked, egregious act of physical violence.

This assault directly facilitated the theft and caused immediate personal harm to the Plaintiff, establishing independent tort liability for Battery.

3. Conversion

Redmont Civil Code Act Part VII §7(a), §7(b), §7(c)(ii)

The Defendant intentionally and wrongfully exerted unauthorized dominion over the Plaintiff's shulker box. The Defendant acquired these items through open physical violence and criminal intimidation, satisfying §7(c)(ii) by taking property through unlawful duress with a clear scheme to permanently deprive the rightful owner.

The Defendant possesses no legal right to retain this property. Pursuant to RCCA Part VII §7, the Plaintiff is fully entitled to Restitution and Treble Damages.

4. Punitive Damages

Redmont Civil Code Act Part III §3(2)(b)(iii) and §3(2)(b)(iv)

The Defendant's conduct severely satisfies the requirements for punitive awards. Under §3(2)(b)(iii), discharging a weapon into a citizen shows a total, reckless indifference to safety and life. Under §3(2)(b)(iv), deploying armed mafia shakedown tactics to rob citizens is deeply malicious, fraudulent, and executed in the ultimate bad faith.

This violent conduct represents a dangerous departure from acceptable server standards, warranting severe financial punishment to deter future cartel extortion.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $15,000DC in Treble Damages, representing three times the maximum fair market value of the stolen shulker box and its beer contents ($5,000DC), pursuant to the Conversion claim under RCCA Part VII §7.
2. $10,000DC in Punitive Damages, pursuant to RCCA Part III §3, to penalize the malicious deployment of firearm violence, battery, and life-threatening mafia extortion.
3. Legal fees calculated at 30% of the total case value, pursuant to RCCA Part III §7(2)(a).

Total Primary Claim: $25,000DC in monetary damages, plus applicable court costs and 30% legal fees.

Evidence:

• P-01: Chat log (P-01.png) showing the Defendant demanding "1 shulk" "for my mafia".
• P-02: Chat log (P-02.png) showing the Plaintiff identifying the mafia interaction.
• P-03: Chat log (P-03.png) capturing the Defendant's direct threat: "Ill pay you with your lif".

Witnesses:

• Staff members with access to message logs, damage/PvP history, and inventory drop logs for smellyboi5 and AirMailmedl814 on June 18, 2026, to be formally requested during the discovery phase pursuant to the court's order.

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 18th day of June 2026

By data submitted,

Ediyto

Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[dragxon4000]

**SUMMIT LAW FIRM**
*Department of Pre-Trial Obstruction and Obfuscation*
*In re: smellyboi5 v. AirMailmedl814*
**NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNFOUNDED, SPECULATIVE, AND JURISDICTIONALLY DEFICIENT COMPLAINT**
NOW COMES THE DEFENDANT, AirMailmedl814, by and through unrepresented special appearance, and respectably moves this Honorable Court to immediately dismiss, with prejudice, the entirety of Plaintiff’s purported Complaint pursuant to the Redmont Rules of Civil Procedure. Alternatively, the Defendant enters this comprehensive response to expose the egregious, systemic lack of evidentiary foundation presented by Counsel for the Plaintiff.
### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
The Defendant notes for the record that the Plaintiff’s dynamic narrative is a masterclass in creative fiction, utterly devoid of corroborating, non-circumstantial evidentiary substantiation. The Plaintiff’s claims rely entirely upon a profound misinterpretation of colloquial digital lexicon, localized server interactions, and unverified transactional occurrences, establishing neither a *prima facie* case for Extortion, Battery, nor Conversion.
### ARGUMENT I: THE UTTER ABSENCE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE REGARDING AN ALLEGED WEAPON
The Plaintiff boldly asserts in Section II, Paragraph 4 of the Complaint that the Defendant "produced a firearm and actively shot the Plaintiff". However, a rigorous forensic review of the Plaintiff's submitted exhibits (P-01, P-02, P-03) and the supplementary database file **message.txt** reveals a glaring, fatal omission: **The Plaintiff possesses absolutely zero actual proof of the Defendant holding, brandishing, discharging, or otherwise possessing a weapon.**
* **Objection 1:** Chat logs cannot register kinetic ballistic damage.
* **Objection 2:** The Plaintiff has failed to attach a single frame of photographic, videographic, or server-log-supported verification demonstrating that a weapon was drawn.
* **Objection 3:** The Plaintiff’s request for "PvP history" in the discovery phase admits to a current lack of actionable evidence, constituting an impermissible fishing expedition.
### ARGUMENT II: THE "NO-BOX" PARADOX AND FAILURE TO PROVE ESCROW OR DOMINION
The Plaintiff's Complaint boldly alleges in Section II, Paragraph 5 that the Defendant "extracted the property from the Plaintiff". Yet, the entire claim suffers from a total failure of *corpus delicti* and basic evidentiary attachment regarding the physical possession, transfer, or current location of the property in question.
* **Total Failure of Proof of Delivery (*Traditio*):** A meticulous cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s own evidentiary exhibits reveals absolutely zero empirical or textual validation that any exchange actually transpired. There is no receipt of transaction, nor is there a system-generated inventory log proving the Plaintiff ever hit a drop button, opened a container, or transferred ownership. An unfulfilled demand is not a completed theft.
* **Total Failure of Proof of Possession (*Dominion*):** The Plaintiff provides absolutely zero evidence that the Defendant is currently, or has ever been, in physical possession of the aforementioned shulker box. Without a server-side audit or visual confirmation showing the shulker box residing inside the Defendant’s actual player inventory, the Plaintiff has failed to establish the most fundamental element of a Conversion claim under Redmont Civil Code Act Part VII §7. One cannot sue someone for keeping an item when you have no proof you actually gave it to them, and no proof that they even have it.
### ARGUMENT III: FAILURE TO ESTABLISH FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE SHULKER
The Plaintiff arbitrarily demands $15,000DC in Treble Damages based on a purely speculative baseline valuation of $5,000DC for "one (1) shulker box of beer". The Defendant explicitly objects to this fabricated valuation:
* **Lack of Valuation Proof:** The Plaintiff has submitted exactly zero commercial receipts, public auction indices, or certified economic appraisals proving the shulker or its contents were worth $5,000DC.
* **Speculative Enrichment:** In the absence of an official, independent economic audit of the specific contents of said shulker box, the Plaintiff's claim of $5,000DC is a mathematically arbitrary figure designed solely to hyper-inflate the prayer for relief in bad faith. For all the Court knows, the Plaintiff already consumed the assets themselves.
### ARGUMENT IV: WILLFUL MISCONSTRUCTION OF COLLOQUIAL ACRONYMS AND DISMISSAL OF "LIF"
The crux of the Plaintiff’s claims for Extortion and Battery hinges upon the text string: *"Ill pay you with your lif"*. The Plaintiff asserts this constitutes an unambiguous death threat. This assertion is legally laugh-and-leave-able. The Plaintiff possesses no actual proof that the sequence of characters "l-i-f" translates to, stands for, or denotes the biological status of "life."
To the contrary, the Defendant hereby submits the definitive contextual framework for the acronym utilized. In contemporary digital communication, much like **"lol"** is universally recognized as the short version of **"laugh out loud,"** the acronym **"lif"** is strictly used as the short-form syntax for:
> **"L-I-F"** : ***Liquidation of Institutional Fermentation***
>
ARGUMENT V: The statement *"Ill pay you with your lif"* translates directly and legally to: *"I shall compensate you via the standardized Liquidation of Institutional Fermentation."* This is an explicit reference to a commercial trade calculation involving fermented beverages (i.e., the beer inside the shulker), completely undermining any allegation of a physical threat, duress, or malicious intent.
### PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. **DISMISS** the Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety due to a complete failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
2. **STRIKE** all references to firearms, extortion, transfer of property, and the arbitrary valuation of $5,000DC from the record as scandalous and unsupported;
3. **AWARD** the Defendant full compensatory relief for time wasted reviewing this absolute typographical, evidentiary circus.
**DATED:** This 21st day of June 2026
*By the Electronic Data Infrastructure of the Defense*
Proof of representation: you can ask me on discord I will send the voice recording counting as a verbal contract "DC: sunnyr6" so hereby I Sunny (black) R6 represent the defendant AirMailmedl814

 

[dragxon4000]

The defendant has been banned and I don't think this case will continue

Be well,

Sunny black

 

[Dartanboy]

**SUMMIT LAW FIRM**
*Department of Pre-Trial Obstruction and Obfuscation*
*In re: smellyboi5 v. AirMailmedl814*
**NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNFOUNDED, SPECULATIVE, AND JURISDICTIONALLY DEFICIENT COMPLAINT**
NOW COMES THE DEFENDANT, AirMailmedl814, by and through unrepresented special appearance, and respectably moves this Honorable Court to immediately dismiss, with prejudice, the entirety of Plaintiff’s purported Complaint pursuant to the Redmont Rules of Civil Procedure. Alternatively, the Defendant enters this comprehensive response to expose the egregious, systemic lack of evidentiary foundation presented by Counsel for the Plaintiff.
### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
The Defendant notes for the record that the Plaintiff’s dynamic narrative is a masterclass in creative fiction, utterly devoid of corroborating, non-circumstantial evidentiary substantiation. The Plaintiff’s claims rely entirely upon a profound misinterpretation of colloquial digital lexicon, localized server interactions, and unverified transactional occurrences, establishing neither a *prima facie* case for Extortion, Battery, nor Conversion.
### ARGUMENT I: THE UTTER ABSENCE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE REGARDING AN ALLEGED WEAPON
The Plaintiff boldly asserts in Section II, Paragraph 4 of the Complaint that the Defendant "produced a firearm and actively shot the Plaintiff". However, a rigorous forensic review of the Plaintiff's submitted exhibits (P-01, P-02, P-03) and the supplementary database file **message.txt** reveals a glaring, fatal omission: **The Plaintiff possesses absolutely zero actual proof of the Defendant holding, brandishing, discharging, or otherwise possessing a weapon.**
* **Objection 1:** Chat logs cannot register kinetic ballistic damage.
* **Objection 2:** The Plaintiff has failed to attach a single frame of photographic, videographic, or server-log-supported verification demonstrating that a weapon was drawn.
* **Objection 3:** The Plaintiff’s request for "PvP history" in the discovery phase admits to a current lack of actionable evidence, constituting an impermissible fishing expedition.
### ARGUMENT II: THE "NO-BOX" PARADOX AND FAILURE TO PROVE ESCROW OR DOMINION
The Plaintiff's Complaint boldly alleges in Section II, Paragraph 5 that the Defendant "extracted the property from the Plaintiff". Yet, the entire claim suffers from a total failure of *corpus delicti* and basic evidentiary attachment regarding the physical possession, transfer, or current location of the property in question.
* **Total Failure of Proof of Delivery (*Traditio*):** A meticulous cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s own evidentiary exhibits reveals absolutely zero empirical or textual validation that any exchange actually transpired. There is no receipt of transaction, nor is there a system-generated inventory log proving the Plaintiff ever hit a drop button, opened a container, or transferred ownership. An unfulfilled demand is not a completed theft.
* **Total Failure of Proof of Possession (*Dominion*):** The Plaintiff provides absolutely zero evidence that the Defendant is currently, or has ever been, in physical possession of the aforementioned shulker box. Without a server-side audit or visual confirmation showing the shulker box residing inside the Defendant’s actual player inventory, the Plaintiff has failed to establish the most fundamental element of a Conversion claim under Redmont Civil Code Act Part VII §7. One cannot sue someone for keeping an item when you have no proof you actually gave it to them, and no proof that they even have it.
### ARGUMENT III: FAILURE TO ESTABLISH FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE SHULKER
The Plaintiff arbitrarily demands $15,000DC in Treble Damages based on a purely speculative baseline valuation of $5,000DC for "one (1) shulker box of beer". The Defendant explicitly objects to this fabricated valuation:
* **Lack of Valuation Proof:** The Plaintiff has submitted exactly zero commercial receipts, public auction indices, or certified economic appraisals proving the shulker or its contents were worth $5,000DC.
* **Speculative Enrichment:** In the absence of an official, independent economic audit of the specific contents of said shulker box, the Plaintiff's claim of $5,000DC is a mathematically arbitrary figure designed solely to hyper-inflate the prayer for relief in bad faith. For all the Court knows, the Plaintiff already consumed the assets themselves.
### ARGUMENT IV: WILLFUL MISCONSTRUCTION OF COLLOQUIAL ACRONYMS AND DISMISSAL OF "LIF"
The crux of the Plaintiff’s claims for Extortion and Battery hinges upon the text string: *"Ill pay you with your lif"*. The Plaintiff asserts this constitutes an unambiguous death threat. This assertion is legally laugh-and-leave-able. The Plaintiff possesses no actual proof that the sequence of characters "l-i-f" translates to, stands for, or denotes the biological status of "life."
To the contrary, the Defendant hereby submits the definitive contextual framework for the acronym utilized. In contemporary digital communication, much like **"lol"** is universally recognized as the short version of **"laugh out loud,"** the acronym **"lif"** is strictly used as the short-form syntax for:
> **"L-I-F"** : ***Liquidation of Institutional Fermentation***
>
ARGUMENT V: The statement *"Ill pay you with your lif"* translates directly and legally to: *"I shall compensate you via the standardized Liquidation of Institutional Fermentation."* This is an explicit reference to a commercial trade calculation involving fermented beverages (i.e., the beer inside the shulker), completely undermining any allegation of a physical threat, duress, or malicious intent.
### PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. **DISMISS** the Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety due to a complete failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
2. **STRIKE** all references to firearms, extortion, transfer of property, and the arbitrary valuation of $5,000DC from the record as scandalous and unsupported;
3. **AWARD** the Defendant full compensatory relief for time wasted reviewing this absolute typographical, evidentiary circus.
**DATED:** This 21st day of June 2026
*By the Electronic Data Infrastructure of the Defense*
Proof of representation: you can ask me on discord I will send the voice recording counting as a verbal contract "DC: sunnyr6" so hereby I Sunny (black) R6 represent the defendant AirMailmedl814

The defendant has been banned and I don't think this case will continue

Be well,

Sunny black

Seeing as you lack the qualifications to practice law in the District Court, your messages are struck.

You are further warned not to respond to cases prior to summons.

 

[Dartanboy]

Court Order

The Defendant has been long-deported. The Public Defender Program is hereby ordered to produce a Public Defender as soon as they are reasonably able to.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Public Defender is present, Your Honor

 

[Dartanboy]

Public Defender is present, Your Honor

The Defense is ordered to produce an Answer to Complaint within 72 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Court finds the Public Defender Program in Contempt of Court for failing to post the Answer to complaint.

@KeyChunky321 please file in the next 24 hours.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor, I would like to apologise for my behaviour.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff failed to insert hyperlinks into the case filing for all the cited Acts under Claims for Relief. This is under Court R. & Proc. 1.10 mandatory, when a source is mentioned the first time.
As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defense respectfully asks this filing to be struck and the Plaintiff to be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor, I would like to apologise for my behaviour.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff failed to insert hyperlinks into the case filing for all the cited Acts under Claims for Relief. This is under Court R. & Proc. 1.10 mandatory, when a source is mentioned the first time.
As such, the filing was not made in line with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defense respectfully asks this filing to be struck and the Plaintiff to be warned to follow the Court Rules and Procedures from here on out or be held in contempt of court.

Thank you

Sustained in part.

The Plaintiff, cc @Ediyto_ is required to amend their complaint to hyperlink all sources in the next 24 hours.

All parties are reminded to familiarize themselves with and follow the Court Rules and Procedures.

Defense will have 48 hours from now to submit their Answer to Complaint.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The 24-hour deadline has passed and the Plaintiff has failed to amend their complaint.
The Defense respectfully asks this filing to be struck and that the Plaintiff be held in contempt of court.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The 24-hour deadline has passed and the Plaintiff has failed to amend their complaint.
The Defense respectfully asks this filing to be struck and that the Plaintiff be held in contempt of court.

We will not be dismissing the case at this time.

@Ediyto_ you are found in Contempt of Court for failing to follow the Court Order.

You will receive an additional count for every 24 hours that passes until you adhere to the order.

@KeyChunky321 the deadline for the answer is tolled until the Plaintiff makes the required changes and notifies the court.

 

[Dartanboy]

CC: @smellyboi5

 

[Ediyto_]

Your Honor,

I sincerely apologize for missing the court's deadline, and I formally apologize for being in contempt of court. I have been dealing with unexpected real life obligations.

I respectfully request a brief extension of 24 hours to properly amend my complaint and add the required hyperlinks. I also kindly ask the court to lift or grant leniency regarding the ongoing contempt charges.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor,

I sincerely apologize for missing the court's deadline, and I formally apologize for being in contempt of court. I have been dealing with unexpected real life obligations.

I respectfully request a brief extension of 24 hours to properly amend my complaint and add the required hyperlinks. I also kindly ask the court to lift or grant leniency regarding the ongoing contempt charges.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

You may have 24 hours from your post without further charges.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Your Honor,

which of the deadlines is now relevant for the Defense:

24 hours from the point of the last edit of the filing or 48 hour from then?

Both deadlines were set, the 48-hour was the last in the ruling in my first Objection.

 

[Dartanboy]

I realize now that the Plaintiff has amended the original filing but did not notify the court. This is my mistake for not ordering them to. No contempt will be issued.

Your Honor,

which of the deadlines is now relevant for the Defense:

24 hours from the point of the last edit of the filing or 48 hour from then?

Both deadlines were set, the 48-hour was the last in the ruling in my first Objection.

We will just go with 24 hours from now.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Answer to Complaint


smellyboi5(Represented by Ediyto of Summit Law Firm)


Plaintiff


v.


AirMailmedl814


Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


1. The Defense affirms that on June 18, 2026 the Defendant initiated a conversation with the plaintiff via private chat, affirms that the Defendant demanded "1 Shulk" and affirms that the Defendant declared that the item was "for my mafia".


2. The Defense affirms that the Plaintiff questioned the Defendant regarding the specific identity of this mafia group.


3. The Defense affirms that the Defendant send the message "Ill pay you with your lif", but denies that the Defendant issued an explicit, direct threat to the Plaintiff's life.


4. The Defense denies that the Defendant produced a firearm and actively shot the Plaintiff and also denies that physical harm and severe duress was created.


5. The Defense denies the combined display of physical violence and textual intimidation and also denies an alledged attempt to bypass lawful consent and extract the property from the Plaintiff.


6. The Defense denies that the Defendant took possession of one shulker box containing beer.


7. The Defense denies that the Defendant has failed and continues to fail to return the shulker box containing beer and also denies that the Defendant failed to offer lawful currency.

II. Defense


1. Burden of Proof

The Plaintiff failed to file evidence for the statements (II. Facts 4./5./6./7.).

The Burden of Proof in a civil case is held by the Plaintiff (Judical Standards Act II, 2. Burden of Proof )

Therefore, as no evidence supports the Plaintiff's testimony and the Plaintiff is required to fulfil the Burden of Proof


2. Treble Damages

The Plaintiff failed to provide evidence for the market value, claimed as $ 5,000 by the Plaintiff.


3. Battery

The Plaintiff cites the Redmont Civil Code Act for Battery, which doesn't contain standalone codified violation titled Battery.

The Plaintiff is respectfully asked by the Defense to carry out this point.


4. Lack of English proficiency

The evidence P-001 and P-003 submitted by the Plaintiff show text messages written by the Defendant.

4.1. "I shulk" and "It for my mafia"

The Defendant's request shows clear signs of insufficient knowledge of the English language.

'I shulk' and 'It for my mafia' both lack a verb. This demonstrates that the Defendant lacks an understanding of the English language.


4.2 " Ill pay you with your lif"

The Plaintiff alleges an explicit and direct threat to the Plaintiff's life.

The Defense argues that the defendant’s lack of English proficiency, which has just been proven, led him to confuse “your” with “my” and thus to intend to say, “I’ll pay you with my life.”

The Standard of Proof in Civil Cases (Judical Standards Act II, §3 Standard of Proof) is "on a balance of probabilities". The scenario presented by the defense is plausible based on the facts and evidence presented so far.


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 14th of July, 2026

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Motion to Compel


The Defense respectfully requests the Court to rule the Plaintiff to produce evidence for the given statements in his case filing, that were shown unsupported in the Defense's Answer to Complaint.


Otherwise, the Defense asks for the filing to be struck.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Objection - Breach of Procedure


The Plaintiff failed to include the relevant law for "IV. Prayer for Relief: 1. Treble Damages".

The Defense respectfully requests to held the Plaintiff in contempt of court, as the Plaintiff had already been ordered to amend his filing, and this part of the filing to be struck.

 

[Dartanboy]

We will now enter Discovery, which shall last 5 days unless both parties agree to end it early.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Objection - Breach of Procedure


The Plaintiff failed to include the relevant law for "IV. Prayer for Relief: 1. Treble Damages".

The Defense respectfully requests to held the Plaintiff in contempt of court, as the Plaintiff had already been ordered to amend his filing, and this part of the filing to be struck.

Overruled.

They did include relevant law:

pursuant to the Conversion claim under RCCA Part VII §7.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Motion to Compel


The Defense respectfully requests the Court to rule the Plaintiff to produce evidence for the given statements in his case filing, that were shown unsupported in the Defense's Answer to Complaint.


Otherwise, the Defense asks for the filing to be struck.

Overruled.

Plaintiff has named a witness to support these alleged facts.

 

[KeyChunky321]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests a reconsideration of the previous Objection.

The Defense wanted to point out that the Plaintiff failed to include the relevant law to define Treble Damages and their amount.
RCCA Part VII §7 only defines the Property Tort of Conversion, not what Treble Damages are and what their amount shall be.

Therefore, the defense requests a re-examination of the judgment on the opposition of the defense.

Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Reconsider

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests a reconsideration of the previous Objection.

The Defense wanted to point out that the Plaintiff failed to include the relevant law to define Treble Damages and their amount.
RCCA Part VII §7 only defines the Property Tort of Conversion, not what Treble Damages are and what their amount shall be.

Therefore, the defense requests a re-examination of the judgment on the opposition of the defense.

Thank you.

Overruled.

The Property Tort of Conversion states: "Remedy: Treble damages; Restitution" and Treble Damages are defined both in plain-English ("treble" means "factor of three") and in the Redmont Civil Code Act, where the Property Tort of Conversion is placed.

I am satisfied that this meets the requirements of the Court Rules.

EDIT: My apologies, I posted it before I finished typing. It has been fixed now.