Lawsuit: In Session Fractionnn v. hydra10794 [2026] DCR 106

Dihmotive

Dihmotive

Citizen
Dimotive
Dimotive
Barrister
Joined
Jun 28, 2026
Messages
12
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Defendant, hydra10794, repeatedly interfered with the Plaintiff's fishing activity in the town of Aventura. The Defendant intentionally positioned himself directly in front of the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was actively fishing, and on multiple occasions positioned himself between the Plaintiff and a caught fish in order to intercept and obtain the catch for himself. This conduct is fully captured on video and was repeated multiple times over the course of a single fishing session, demonstrating clear intent rather than accident.

I. PARTIES
1. Fractionnn, Plaintiff
2. hydra10794, Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On June 29, 2026, the Plaintiff was fishing in the town of Aventura (P-001).
2. While the Plaintiff was actively fishing, the Defendant repeatedly positioned himself directly in front of the Plaintiff's character (P-001).
3. As a result of the Defendant's positioning, the game's hit detection mechanically registered the Plaintiff's fishing rod motion as striking the Defendant. This was an artifact of the Defendant placing himself in the Plaintiff's line of action, and at no point did the Plaintiff intend to attack, nor take any voluntary action directed at, the Defendant (P-001).
4. On multiple separate occasions during the same session, after the Plaintiff successfully hooked a fish and began reeling it in, the Defendant moved into position between the Plaintiff and the incoming catch, causing the fish to be collected by the Defendant instead of the Plaintiff (P-001).
5. This pattern repeated several times in succession over the course of the recording, despite the Plaintiff's continued attempts to fish without obstruction (P-001).
6. The repetitive and deliberate nature of this positioning, occurring immediately and specifically at the moment of each catch, demonstrates that the Defendant's conduct was intentional rather than incidental or accidental.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant's repeated interception of fish caught by the Plaintiff constitutes Theft under the Criminal Code Act, which defines the offence as occurring where a person takes property belonging to another without consent and intends to permanently deprive the owner of it. The fish hooked by the Plaintiff's rod became the Plaintiff's property at the moment of catch, and the Defendant knowingly and repeatedly positioned himself to divert that property to himself without the Plaintiff's consent.
2. The Defendant's pattern of deliberately obstructing and interfering with the Plaintiff's fishing activity, on repeated occasions within a single session, constitutes intentional harassment.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $25 in restitution, representing the market value of tuna fish (silver star) taken by the Defendant during the recorded incident.
2. $2,500 in legal fees and compensation for the time required to bring this claim.
3. An injunction directing the Defendant to cease interfering with the Plaintiff's fishing activity going forward.

EVIDENCE
P-001: Video recording documenting the Defendant's repeated positioning in front of the Plaintiff and interception of caught fish throughout the fishing session. (
)

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 29th day of June 2026
 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@hydra10794 is commanded to appear before the District Court in the case of Fractionnn v. hydra10794 [2026] DCR 106.

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.

 
Your Honor,

Theory, Talion & Partners is present on behalf of the defendant.

Screenshot 2026-07-07 190648.png
 
Last edited:

Answer to Complaint


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

Fractionnn
Plaintiff

v.

Hydra10794, Represented by _GreyMC of Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS that on 29 June 2026, the Plaintiff was fishing in the town of Aventura.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant repeatedly positioned himself directly in front of the Plaintiff's character while the Plaintiff was fishing.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that because of the Defendant's positioning, the game's hit detection mechanically registered the Plaintiff's fishing rod motion as striking the Defendant. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that this was an artifact of the Defendant placing himself in the Plaintiff's line of action, and that at no point did the Plaintiff intend to attack, nor take any voluntary action directed at, the Defendant.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant picked up the fish that the Plaintiff reeled in at multiple times, and NOTES that the Plaintiff’s inventory was full.
5. The Defense AFFIRMS that this pattern repeated several times in succession over multiple minutes.
6. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant acted intentionally.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff fails to show a legally cognizable civil tort in this case.

MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 decided that the Plaintiff must claim a valid civil tort from Redmont Civil Code Act or that the Plaintiff’s claim must be supported by judicial precedent. This comes from RCCA Part II, Section §3(1)(a):

Nothing in this Code prevents a plaintiff from seeking remedy for harm not explicitly codified, where common law principles or judicial precedent support such a claim.
Click to expand...

There is a claim of Theft in Part VIII, Section §9 of the Criminal Code Act. However, this is not a recognized civil tort, and instead a criminal allegation that the government is instructed to go after. [2026] DCR 67 furthered this by deciding that there “is no statute under the Redmont Criminal Code that allows for private suits.”

Further, the Plaintiff notes harassment, which is not a recognized civil tort or criminal allegation in Redmont. The closest criminal allegation is Disturbing the Peace, which is a criminal allegation, not a legally cognizable civil tort.


2. The Plaintiff lacks the personal jurisdiction to pursue this case.

Rule 2.1 states that in order for the Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:
1. [The Plaintiff] Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff fails to show both the second and third points:

The Plaintiff fails to show point three, as the Plaintiff has given no civil tort under the RCCA. Further, both case precedent ([2026] DCR 67 & [2026] DCR 79) and law (CCA Part I §7(4)) do not support that a civil Plaintiff can go after a criminal allegation. Like the Defense noted above, the Plaintiff has only given criminal allegations instead of valid, cognizable civil torts. The Plaintiff does not have any standing to pursue this case.

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 9th day of July 2026

 
Last edited:
greymc said:

Answer to Complaint


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

Fractionnn
Plaintiff

v.

Hydra10794, Represented by _GreyMC of Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS that on 29 June 2026, the Plaintiff was fishing in the town of Aventura.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant repeatedly positioned himself directly in front of the Plaintiff's character while the Plaintiff was fishing.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that because of the Defendant's positioning, the game's hit detection mechanically registered the Plaintiff's fishing rod motion as striking the Defendant. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that this was an artifact of the Defendant placing himself in the Plaintiff's line of action, and that at no point did the Plaintiff intend to attack, nor take any voluntary action directed at, the Defendant (P-001).
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant picked up the fish that the Plaintiff reeled in at multiple times, and NOTES that the Plaintiff’s inventory was full.
5. The Defense AFFIRMS that this pattern was repeated several times in succession over multiple minutes.
6. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant acted intentionally.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff fails to show a legally cognizable civil tort in this case.

MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 decided that the Plaintiff must claim a valid civil tort from Redmont Civil Code Act or that the Plaintiff’s claim must be supported by judicial precedent. This comes from RCCA Part II, Section §3(1)(a):


There is a claim of Theft in Part VIII, Section §9 of the Criminal Code Act. However, this is not a recognized civil tort, and instead a criminal allegation that the government is instructed to go after. [2026] DCR 67 furthered this by deciding that there “is no statute under the Redmont Criminal Code that allows for private suits.”

Further, the Plaintiff notes harassment, which is not a recognized civil tort or criminal allegation in Redmont. The closest criminal allegation is Disturbing the Peace, which is a criminal allegation, not a legally cognizable civil tort.


2. The Plaintiff lacks the personal jurisdiction to pursue this case.

Rule 2.1 states that in order for the Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:

The Plaintiff fails to show both the second and third points:

The Plaintiff fails to show point three, as the Plaintiff has given no civil tort under the RCCA. Further, both case precedent ([2026] DCR 67 & [2026] DCR 79) and law (CCA Part I §7(4)) do not support that a civil Plaintiff can go after a criminal allegation. Like the Defense noted above, the Plaintiff has only given criminal allegations instead of valid, cognizable civil torts. The Plaintiff does not have any standing to pursue this case.

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 9th day of July 2026

Click to expand...
Counselor, please refer to Rule 3.2.4 of the Information - Court Rules and Procedures.
You are encouraged to move to amend your answer accordingly.
 
Your Honor,

I apologize for the mistake and have fixed the answer according to Rule 3.2.4.
 
Last edited:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER

The Defense would firstly like to apologize for a previous mistake where Counsel improperly amended the Answer without requesting the Court’s permission. Upon realization of this error, Counsel immediately reverted the change and now apologizes for the mistake and confusion.

Pursuant to the Court's request to amend the Answer to Complaint, the Defense respectfully moves that the Honorable Court grant the following amendments to the Answer to Complaint under Rule 3.4:

3. The Defense AFFIRMS that because of the Defendant's positioning, the game's hit detection mechanically registered the Plaintiff's fishing rod motion as striking the Defendant. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that this was an artifact of the Defendant placing himself in the Plaintiff's line of action, and that at no point did the Plaintiff intend to attack, nor take any voluntary action directed at, the Defendant.
6. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant acted intentionally.

The Defense again apologizes to the Court for the procedural error and respectfully requests that this Motion be granted.

 
greymc said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER

The Defense would firstly like to apologize for a previous mistake where Counsel improperly amended the Answer without requesting the Court’s permission. Upon realization of this error, Counsel immediately reverted the change and now apologizes for the mistake and confusion.

Pursuant to the Court's request to amend the Answer to Complaint, the Defense respectfully moves that the Honorable Court grant the following amendments to the Answer to Complaint under Rule 3.4:

3. The Defense AFFIRMS that because of the Defendant's positioning, the game's hit detection mechanically registered the Plaintiff's fishing rod motion as striking the Defendant. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that this was an artifact of the Defendant placing himself in the Plaintiff's line of action, and that at no point did the Plaintiff intend to attack, nor take any voluntary action directed at, the Defendant.
6. The Defense DOES NOT CONTEST that the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant acted intentionally.

The Defense again apologizes to the Court for the procedural error and respectfully requests that this Motion be granted.

Click to expand...
Don't sweat it, motion granted. Thank you for letting me know.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves to amend the Complaint in this matter
pursuant to Rule 3.4, in order to correct the legal basis of the
Plaintiff's claims by replacing the reference to Theft under the
Criminal Code Act with the proper civil tort of Conversion under the
Redmont Civil Code Act. The facts of the case remain identical — only
the legal framing is being corrected.

The Plaintiff requests that Claim 1 under Section III be amended to
read as follows:

"The Defendant's repeated interception of fish caught by the Plaintiff
constitutes Conversion under Part VII §7(c)(i) of the Redmont

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to the Defendant's Answer and
Defences as follows:

I. RESPONSE TO DEFENCE 1

The Defense correctly identifies that Theft under the Criminal Code
Act is not a cognizable civil tort. The Plaintiff acknowledges this
and has filed a concurrent Motion to Amend the Complaint to cite the
proper civil tort — Conversion under Part VII §7(c)(i) of the Redmont
Civil Code Act — which directly covers the wrongful taking of the
Plaintiff's property with intent to permanently deprive.

The facts underpinning this claim are uncontested by the Defense. The
Defense AFFIRMS in its own Answer that the Defendant picked up fish
caught by the Plaintiff on multiple occasions and that this pattern
repeated several times in succession. The legal basis is being
corrected; the underlying conduct is not in dispute.

II. RESPONSE TO DEFENCE 2

The Defense argues the Plaintiff lacks standing. With the Complaint
amended to cite Conversion under RCCA Part VII §7(c)(i), all three
elements of Rule 2.1 standing are satisfied:

1. The Plaintiff suffered injury — loss of caught fish — caused by the
Defendant.
2. The cause of that injury is against the law, specifically
Conversion under the RCCA.
3. Remedy is applicable under RCCA Part VII §7(c)(i) and Part III
§8.1.a (Treble Damages), which can be granted by a favorable decision.

III. RESPONSE TO FACT 4

The Defense notes in Fact 4 that "the Plaintiff's inventory was full."
The Plaintiff submits that this is irrelevant to the question of
ownership. The fish belonged to the Plaintiff the moment it was
hooked. A full inventory does not extinguish the Plaintiff's property
rights over a caught fish, nor does it grant the Defendant any
entitlement to take it. The Defendant had no authorization to take
the Plaintiff's catch under any circumstances.

The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its time.

DATED: This 11th day of July 2026
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Defense objects to the filing of the “Response to the Defendant’s Answer” in Post #13. This response is a violation of court procedures, as there is no motion or rule that allows the Plaintiff to send this, and the Plaintiff will have a chance to respond to the defenses in Opening Statements.

The Defense respectfully requests that this response be struck from the record in its entirety.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.12, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Rule 2.1 states that in order for the Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:

1. [The Plaintiff] Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...

In AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85 the Court decided that theft was not a valid civil tort in Redmont. This claim is taken from the Criminal Code Act, which the Court decided in [2026] DCR 85 and before in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 that a civil Plaintiff cannot bring criminal allegations against a Defendant, and that only the Commonwealth can.

Since the Plaintiff’s claim of theft is only in the CCA, there is no relevant law the Court cannot grant an applicable remedy. The third element of standing fails for Claim I and it should be dismissed under Rule 5.12.

Claim II is of harassment, which is not in the CCA nor the RCCA. Since there is no law in Redmont about harassment, this claim fails the second element. Claim II should be dismissed under Rule 5.12.

This case should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.12.

 
Fractionnn said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves to amend the Complaint in this matter
pursuant to Rule 3.4, in order to correct the legal basis of the
Plaintiff's claims by replacing the reference to Theft under the
Criminal Code Act with the proper civil tort of Conversion under the
Redmont Civil Code Act. The facts of the case remain identical — only
the legal framing is being corrected.

The Plaintiff requests that Claim 1 under Section III be amended to
read as follows:

"The Defendant's repeated interception of fish caught by the Plaintiff
constitutes Conversion under Part VII §7(c)(i) of the Redmont

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to the Defendant's Answer and
Defences as follows:

I. RESPONSE TO DEFENCE 1

The Defense correctly identifies that Theft under the Criminal Code
Act is not a cognizable civil tort. The Plaintiff acknowledges this
and has filed a concurrent Motion to Amend the Complaint to cite the
proper civil tort — Conversion under Part VII §7(c)(i) of the Redmont
Civil Code Act — which directly covers the wrongful taking of the
Plaintiff's property with intent to permanently deprive.

The facts underpinning this claim are uncontested by the Defense. The
Defense AFFIRMS in its own Answer that the Defendant picked up fish
caught by the Plaintiff on multiple occasions and that this pattern
repeated several times in succession. The legal basis is being
corrected; the underlying conduct is not in dispute.

II. RESPONSE TO DEFENCE 2

The Defense argues the Plaintiff lacks standing. With the Complaint
amended to cite Conversion under RCCA Part VII §7(c)(i), all three
elements of Rule 2.1 standing are satisfied:

1. The Plaintiff suffered injury — loss of caught fish — caused by the
Defendant.
2. The cause of that injury is against the law, specifically
Conversion under the RCCA.
3. Remedy is applicable under RCCA Part VII §7(c)(i) and Part III
§8.1.a (Treble Damages), which can be granted by a favorable decision.

III. RESPONSE TO FACT 4

The Defense notes in Fact 4 that "the Plaintiff's inventory was full."
The Plaintiff submits that this is irrelevant to the question of
ownership. The fish belonged to the Plaintiff the moment it was
hooked. A full inventory does not extinguish the Plaintiff's property
rights over a caught fish, nor does it grant the Defendant any
entitlement to take it. The Defendant had no authorization to take
the Plaintiff's catch under any circumstances.

The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its time.

DATED: This 11th day of July 2026
Click to expand...
Motion to amend is granted.
 
greymc said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Defense objects to the filing of the “Response to the Defendant’s Answer” in Post #13. This response is a violation of court procedures, as there is no motion or rule that allows the Plaintiff to send this, and the Plaintiff will have a chance to respond to the defenses in Opening Statements.

The Defense respectfully requests that this response be struck from the record in its entirety.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The response will be struck.
 
Last edited:
INTERROGATORIES TO THE PLAINTIFF

1. What was the approximate time (UTC) of the alleged incident?
 
The Defense also wishes to extend discovery by 72 hours pursuant to Rule 4.4. This is requested as counsel has been pre-occupied and unable to submit material until today.

Respectfully submitted,
_GreyMC
 
INTERROGATORIES TO THE PLAINTIFF

2. Why did the Plaintiff not move to another location when the Defendant was sitting right in front of him?
 
greymc said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.12, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Rule 2.1 states that in order for the Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show that:


In AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85 the Court decided that theft was not a valid civil tort in Redmont. This claim is taken from the Criminal Code Act, which the Court decided in [2026] DCR 85 and before in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 that a civil Plaintiff cannot bring criminal allegations against a Defendant, and that only the Commonwealth can.

Since the Plaintiff’s claim of theft is only in the CCA, there is no relevant law the Court cannot grant an applicable remedy. The third element of standing fails for Claim I and it should be dismissed under Rule 5.12.

Claim II is of harassment, which is not in the CCA nor the RCCA. Since there is no law in Redmont about harassment, this claim fails the second element. Claim II should be dismissed under Rule 5.12.

This case should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.12.

Click to expand...
Your Honor,

The Defense withdraws this motion to dismiss in accordance with the Plaintiff's motion to amend, and to submit a new Motion to Dismiss.

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in its’ entirety pursuant to Rule 5.13, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY
Rule 5.13 states:

A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with.
Click to expand...

On the 12th of July 2026 at 2:53 PM EDT, the Defense, pursuant to Rule 4.8, sent an interrogatory to the Plaintiff as seen in Post #18. It has been more than 48 hours since the interrogation has been made, and opposing counsel has not responded. Rule 4.8 gives the Plaintiff 48 hours to give an answer, and 24 hours to object to the interrogatory. The Plaintiff has not sent an answer or objection, violating Rule 4.8.

Therefore, the Plaintiff moves that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule 5.13.

Should this complaint be dismissed, Theory, Talion & Partners Inc, the Defense's counsel, seeks the minimum $3,000 in legal fees.

 
greymc said:
Your Honor,

The Defense withdraws this motion to dismiss in accordance with the Plaintiff's motion to amend, and to submit a new Motion to Dismiss.

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in its’ entirety pursuant to Rule 5.13, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY
Rule 5.13 states:


On the 12th of July 2026 at 2:53 PM EDT, the Defense, pursuant to Rule 4.8, sent an interrogatory to the Plaintiff as seen in Post #18. It has been more than 48 hours since the interrogation has been made, and opposing counsel has not responded. Rule 4.8 gives the Plaintiff 48 hours to give an answer, and 24 hours to object to the interrogatory. The Plaintiff has not sent an answer or objection, violating Rule 4.8.

Therefore, the Plaintiff moves that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule 5.13.

Should this complaint be dismissed, Theory, Talion & Partners Inc, the Defense's counsel, seeks the minimum $3,000 in legal fees.

Click to expand...
The Court is inclined to grant this motion.
Should the Plaintiff make no reference to the discovery requests within 24 hours of this post, the Court may have no option but to dismiss the case.
cc: @Fractionnn
 
Your Honor,

It has been over 24 hours since the Plaintiff's deadline, and they have yet to respond. The Defense respectfully requests for a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
 
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff sincerely apologizes to the Court for the delayed
response to the Defense's interrogatories. The Plaintiff was unaware
of the 48-hour deadline and requests the Court's leniency given that
the Plaintiff is self-represented and new to court proceedings.

The Plaintiff hereby answers both interrogatories:

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 1:
The incident occurred on June 29, 2026. The Plaintiff does not recall
the exact UTC time but the exact timestamp (in-game) is visible in the video
evidence submitted as P-001.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 2:
The Plaintiff had established a fishing position in Aventura prior to
the Defendant's interference. The Plaintiff should not be required to
vacate a lawful fishing spot due to another player's deliberate and
harassing conduct. Furthermore, the Defendant followed and continued
to obstruct the Plaintiff regardless of position, as evidenced in
P-001. A victim of conversion is not obligated to flee their property
in order to avoid having it taken.

The Plaintiff again apologizes for the delay and requests the Court
deny the Motion to Dismiss in the interests of justice.

DATED: This 18th day of July 2026
 
Fractionnn said:
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff sincerely apologizes to the Court for the delayed
response to the Defense's interrogatories. The Plaintiff was unaware
of the 48-hour deadline and requests the Court's leniency given that
the Plaintiff is self-represented and new to court proceedings.

The Plaintiff hereby answers both interrogatories:

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 1:
The incident occurred on June 29, 2026. The Plaintiff does not recall
the exact UTC time but the exact timestamp (in-game) is visible in the video
evidence submitted as P-001.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 2:
The Plaintiff had established a fishing position in Aventura prior to
the Defendant's interference. The Plaintiff should not be required to
vacate a lawful fishing spot due to another player's deliberate and
harassing conduct. Furthermore, the Defendant followed and continued
to obstruct the Plaintiff regardless of position, as evidenced in
P-001. A victim of conversion is not obligated to flee their property
in order to avoid having it taken.

The Plaintiff again apologizes for the delay and requests the Court
deny the Motion to Dismiss in the interests of justice.

DATED: This 18th day of July 2026
Click to expand...
I will allow this as a valid interrogatory answer. Counselor, this is your last warning.
As such, the motion to dismiss is denied.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

Your Honor,

On June 29, 2026, the Plaintiff, Fractionnn, was fishing lawfully in
the town of Aventura when the Defendant, hydra10794, repeatedly and
deliberately interfered with the Plaintiff's fishing activity in order
to steal the Plaintiff's catches for himself.

The facts of this case are not in serious dispute. The Defense has
AFFIRMED in its own Answer that:
- The Defendant repeatedly positioned himself directly in front of
the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was fishing.
- The Defendant picked up fish caught by the Plaintiff on multiple
occasions.
- This pattern repeated several times in succession over multiple
minutes.

The Defense has admitted the conduct occurred. The only question
before this Court is whether that conduct is unlawful — and it is.

The Defendant's actions constitute Conversion under Part VII §7(c)(i)
of the Redmont Civil Code Act. Conversion occurs where a party
intentionally and wrongfully takes another's property with the intent
to permanently deprive them of it. Every element is satisfied here:

1. PROPERTY — The fish hooked by the Plaintiff's rod were the
Plaintiff's property the moment they were caught. The Defendant
had no claim to them whatsoever.

2. INTENTIONAL AND WRONGFUL TAKING — The Defendant did not
accidentally pick up one fish. He repeatedly and deliberately
positioned himself between the Plaintiff and incoming catches,
multiple times in a row, over the course of several minutes. This
pattern of conduct — confirmed by the Defense itself — demonstrates
clear intent. This is fully documented in P-001.

3. PERMANENT DEPRIVATION — The Defendant took the fish and did not
return them. The Plaintiff never recovered his catches.

The Defense raised in interrogatories that the Plaintiff's inventory
was full. This is irrelevant. A full inventory does not transfer
ownership of the Plaintiff's property to the Defendant, nor does it
give the Defendant any right to take it. The fish belonged to the
Plaintiff regardless of inventory status.

The Defense also asked why the Plaintiff did not move locations.
The Plaintiff should not be required to flee a lawful fishing spot
to avoid having his property stolen. The obligation not to take
another's property rests on the Defendant, not on the Plaintiff to
avoid him.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court find the Defendant liable for
Conversion under RCCA Part VII §7(c)(i), and award:

1. $25 in compensatory damages representing the value of the fish
taken.
2. $75 in treble damages pursuant to RCCA Part III §8.1.a as
permitted by the Conversion tort.
3. $2,500 in legal fees and compensation.
4. An injunction directing the Defendant to cease interfering with
the Plaintiff's fishing activity.

The evidence speaks for itself. The Defense has admitted the conduct.
The law is clear. The Plaintiff respectfully requests a verdict in
his favor.

DATED: This 18th day of July 2026
 
Your Honor,

The Defense would like to inquire about why opening statements are underway. There are no witnesses to examine in this case, so is it not customary to immediately move to closing statements after discovery?

This is being made by myself as an attorney at Theory, Talion & Partners Inc. (the client’s appointed legal representative) who is directly supervising _GreyMC.
 
CreeperTD said:
Your Honor,

The Defense would like to inquire about why opening statements are underway. There are no witnesses to examine in this case, so is it not customary to immediately move to closing statements after discovery?

This is being made by myself as an attorney at Theory, Talion & Partners Inc. (the client’s appointed legal representative) who is directly supervising _GreyMC.
Click to expand...
Very well, seeing as the general convention in the Federal Court is to forego the opening statements stage, and that such convention will expedite proceedings, we'll do things a bit differently.

The Plaintiff's opening statement will be considered their legal brief. Defense will now submit their legal brief. I'll allow both parties to amend their briefs for a set period of time (seeing as the Plaintiff was not aware there would not be another legal filing). After both parties' legal briefs and said amendment stage, and assuming no pending items remain, the Court will move into recess.

As such, Defendant's counsel shall now submit their legal brief within 72 hours.
 
Dihmotive said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

Your Honor,

On June 29, 2026, the Plaintiff, Fractionnn, was fishing lawfully in
the town of Aventura when the Defendant, hydra10794, repeatedly and
deliberately interfered with the Plaintiff's fishing activity in order
to steal the Plaintiff's catches for himself.

The facts of this case are not in serious dispute. The Defense has
AFFIRMED in its own Answer that:
- The Defendant repeatedly positioned himself directly in front of
the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was fishing.
- The Defendant picked up fish caught by the Plaintiff on multiple
occasions.
- This pattern repeated several times in succession over multiple
minutes.

The Defense has admitted the conduct occurred. The only question
before this Court is whether that conduct is unlawful — and it is.

The Defendant's actions constitute Conversion under Part VII §7(c)(i)
of the Redmont Civil Code Act. Conversion occurs where a party
intentionally and wrongfully takes another's property with the intent
to permanently deprive them of it. Every element is satisfied here:

1. PROPERTY — The fish hooked by the Plaintiff's rod were the
Plaintiff's property the moment they were caught. The Defendant
had no claim to them whatsoever.

2. INTENTIONAL AND WRONGFUL TAKING — The Defendant did not
accidentally pick up one fish. He repeatedly and deliberately
positioned himself between the Plaintiff and incoming catches,
multiple times in a row, over the course of several minutes. This
pattern of conduct — confirmed by the Defense itself — demonstrates
clear intent. This is fully documented in P-001.

3. PERMANENT DEPRIVATION — The Defendant took the fish and did not
return them. The Plaintiff never recovered his catches.

The Defense raised in interrogatories that the Plaintiff's inventory
was full. This is irrelevant. A full inventory does not transfer
ownership of the Plaintiff's property to the Defendant, nor does it
give the Defendant any right to take it. The fish belonged to the
Plaintiff regardless of inventory status.

The Defense also asked why the Plaintiff did not move locations.
The Plaintiff should not be required to flee a lawful fishing spot
to avoid having his property stolen. The obligation not to take
another's property rests on the Defendant, not on the Plaintiff to
avoid him.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court find the Defendant liable for
Conversion under RCCA Part VII §7(c)(i), and award:

1. $25 in compensatory damages representing the value of the fish
taken.
2. $75 in treble damages pursuant to RCCA Part III §8.1.a as
permitted by the Conversion tort.
3. $2,500 in legal fees and compensation.
4. An injunction directing the Defendant to cease interfering with
the Plaintiff's fishing activity.

The evidence speaks for itself. The Defense has admitted the conduct.
The law is clear. The Plaintiff respectfully requests a verdict in
his favor.

DATED: This 18th day of July 2026
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Defense objects to the Plaintiff's closing statement, or legal brief, under Rule 3.3 and Rule 1.10.

I. Rule 3.3
The Plaintiff has stated in their closing statement, or legal brief, that they request $75 in treble damages. Pursuant to Rule 3.3, prayers for relief are in their complaint, which could have only be amended during discovery. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot request treble damages as they have not amended their complaint. As such, the Defense requests for treble damages to be struck.

II. Rule 1.10
The Plaintiff has also failed to hyperlink their sources in their closing statement. Rule 1.10 requires sources to be hyperlinked the first time they are mentioned. As such, the Defense requests the brief be struck or amended to comply with the Court Rules and Procedures.

 
Your Honor,

The Defense requests an additional 24 hours to file the legal brief. Counsel has had work over the past 3 days among other IRL events, and work on another case, and was only able to start on the legal brief today.
 
greymc said:
Your Honor,

The Defense requests an additional 24 hours to file the legal brief. Counsel has had work over the past 3 days among other IRL events, and work on another case, and was only able to start on the legal brief today.
Click to expand...
Granted. I see you didn't make it though, you have 24 hours from this post to submit the brief.
 
Your Honor, thank you for the time extension. I was busy traveling all day yesterday for IRL matters, and I thought I posted my statement, even though I did not. The statement is attached. The Defense would also like to ask when the objections will be ruled upon.

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Your Honor,

This case is about a beggar, yet is being framed as a thief and a criminal by the Plaintiff. My client, hydra10794, was begging on the Aventura docks on the 29th of June 2026, and picked up a fish from the Plaintiff. After he picked up that fish, he was killed. He was never asked to give it back, just straight to irrational and unreasonable death.

The Plaintiff has claimed that in this case the “law is clear.” This statement, the Defense does not contest. The law is clear, and it supports the Defense’s side.

II. DUTY TO MITIGATE

Part III §3(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act states:

Duty to Mitigate - A party’s obligation to make reasonable efforts to limit the harm they suffer from another party’s actions. In order to reduce an award based on this defence, a party must prove that the other side did not exhaust reasonable measures to protect their own interest.
Click to expand...

In MegaMinerM v. Lovely Incorporated [2024] FCR 89, the Court decided that the Plaintiff had a duty to mitigate their damages by quitting or responding after their missed payroll. Since the Plaintiff failed to do this, their damages were modified.

In this case, the Plaintiff failed in their duty to mitigate. Fractionnn, the Plaintiff, had multiple opportunities to move away from the main Aventura docks and fish elsewhere, especially after they realized that the Defendant was allegedly interrupting their fishing activities. However, Fractionnn still sat in the same spot, failing to exhaust reasonable measures to protect their catches (P-001). The law is clear, the Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate their damages by moving away from the situation.

III. INABILITY FOR HARM TO OCCUR

The Plaintiff has agreed that their inventory was full, and it can be openly seen (P-001). The Plaintiff in this case also had pickup priority. This is a Minecraft vanilla feature, which decides which player will pick up items before another player can. This pickup priority can be seen through the catches of the Sunfish, Kelp, and Sardine Fish, even when the Defendant was right in front of him (P-001). The only catch that the Defendant received was the Tuna Fish, which was when the Plaintiff’s inventory was full.

Just because the Defendant picked up the fish, does not automatically make him guilty of conversion. The Plaintiff could have asked for the fish, but he instead acted irrationally and killed the Defendant (P-001). Had there been another bystander next to the Plaintiff, they would have instead picked up the fish. No harm could have occurred, as the Plaintiff would have never been able to pick up this fish. Whether the Defendant picked the fish up or not does not matter, as the Plaintiff was never able to.

IV. CONVERSION
Conversion requires the Plaintiff to prove that the Defendant wrongfully took the property from the Plaintiff, intended to deprive them of that Property, and that it was committed by one of the six methods marked out in RCCA Part VII §7(c).

The Plaintiff has failed to prove every single one of these requirements.

1. The Plaintiff has never proved that they owned the property. The Plaintiff has stated multiple times that fishing an item automatically makes the person the owner of the property, but has failed to cite any law or precedent that claims that. As stated earlier in this filing, the Plaintiff could never have received the fish, as their inventory was full. This fails the first element of Conversion.
2. The Plaintiff has also failed to prove that the Defendant intended to permanently deprive them of the Tuna Fish. The Defendant could have given back the fish, but was unable to as the Plaintiff killed them directly after. Obviously, one would not return something after they were just murdered by the person they tried to return it to. The Plaintiff did not even ask for the fish back, just went straight to the unreasonable choice of killing. Therefore, this fails the second element of Conversion.
3. The Plaintiff has focused on the first method of conversion, that being “stealing property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner.” The Plaintiff has claimed that the actions by the Defendant, including the alleged blocking of the catches, constitutes clear intent. However, the Defense does not agree. The Defense did not contest the fact that the Plaintiff believed it was clear intent, but not that there was clear intent. Although the Defendant did stand right in front of Fractionnn, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that this was to catch the fish. The Defendant was facing the Plaintiff, like he was trying to get attention, or something else, like begging, as seen by the message “but i have no money” sent by the Defendant (P-001). There is not clear proof that he wanted the fish for himself, but instead that he was begging for money. Finally, due to this failure on behalf of the Plaintiff, they have failed to prove the third requirement of Conversion.

Moreover, RCCA Part VII §7(e) states that conversion does not apply when the Defendant reasonably believed they had a right to the property. In this case, the Defendant had loads of evidence to believe the property was theirs. First of all, the Plaintiff’s inventory was full, and the Defendant picked up the fish, for the first time in all of the catches shown in the video (P-001). Then, after the Plaintiff picked up the fish, the Defendant did not ask for it back. And even after that, the Plaintiff killed the Defendant. The Defendant reasonably believed they could have kept the property as they were never asked to give it back. The law is clear. When a Defendant reasonably believes they have a right to the property, conversion cannot apply.

V. INTENTIONAL HARASSMENT

The Plaintiff’s second claim is of Intentional Harassment. This is not a valid civil tort, and therefore holds no legal bearings. The Plaintiff has failed to cite judicial precedent or a common law tort that would allow them to bring these claims against the Defendant.

VI. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, my client, a beggar and poor man, is being accused of conversion for simply picking up a fish. The Defense has proved to the court that just picking up a fish is not enough to charge for conversion.

The Defense has shown how the Plaintiff has failed to prove every single requirement set forth in the RCCA on Conversion. They have also shown how the Defendant had a reason to assume that they had a right to the property. Further, the Defense has proved how intentional harassment holds no bearings.

In the end, the law is clear. The Plaintiff has failed to prove all of their claims. The Defense humbly requests a verdict in their favor.

Respectfully submitted,
_GreyMC
Theory, Talion & Partners, Counsel for the Defendant​

 
Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL BRIEF - AMENDMENT

Fractionnn
Plaintiff
v.
hydra10794
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff amends their legal brief to address the Defense's
arguments, comply with Rule 1.10, and withdraw treble damages.

I. HYPERLINKS (Rule 1.10)
The Plaintiff cites the Redmont Civil Code Act [Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act] throughout
this brief.

II. WITHDRAWAL OF TREBLE DAMAGES
The Plaintiff withdraws the $75 treble damages request in response to
the Defense's procedural objection under Rule 3.3.

III. DUTY TO MITIGATE

The Defense cites Part III §3(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act and
argues the Plaintiff should have moved fishing spots. This fails for
two reasons:

First, moving spots is not a "reasonable measure" when the Defendant
is actively and deliberately targeting the Plaintiff. The duty to
mitigate does not require victims to flee wrongdoers.

Second, the Defense's own Answer AFFIRMED the Defendant repeatedly
positioned himself in front of the Plaintiff multiple times over
several minutes. This was targeted conduct, not something the
Plaintiff could simply escape by relocating.

IV. FULL INVENTORY ARGUMENT

The Defense argues no harm could occur because the Plaintiff's
inventory was full. This is wrong in law and in fact.

Ownership of the fish was established the moment the Plaintiff hooked
it — not the moment it entered their inventory. A full inventory does
not extinguish property rights. By the Defense's logic, any player
could steal from another simply by waiting until their inventory is
full. This cannot be the standard the Court intends.

The Defense also notes the Plaintiff successfully picked up other fish
during the session. This actually supports the Plaintiff — it confirms
the Plaintiff was actively fishing and catching, and that the Defendant
specifically intercepted the one moment the inventory was full,
demonstrating opportunistic intent.

V. CONVERSION

The Defense contests all three elements of Conversion. The Plaintiff
responds:

1. OWNERSHIP — The Plaintiff hooked the fish with their own rod. The
Defense has cited no law or precedent establishing that a hooked fish
does not belong to the person who caught it. Common sense and property
principles establish ownership here.

2. INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE — The Defense's own Answer AFFIRMED
the pattern repeated several times in succession. This was not
accidental. The Defendant was not an innocent bystander — he was
repeatedly positioning himself to intercept catches. The single fish
he obtained was the direct result of this deliberate pattern.

3. BEGGING DEFENSE — The Defense claims the Defendant was simply
begging for money and happened to pick up a fish. But the Defense
AFFIRMED in their Answer that the Defendant "repeatedly positioned
himself directly in front of the Plaintiff" and that "this pattern
repeated several times in succession over multiple minutes." A beggar
does not need to repeatedly place themselves between a fisher and
their incoming catches. P-001 demonstrates this clearly.

4. RCCA §7(e) — The Defense claims the Defendant reasonably believed
he had a right to the fish. No reasonable person believes they are
entitled to intercept another player's catch simply because they were
standing nearby when that player's inventory was full. This defence
cannot stand.

VI. CONCLUSION

The Defense has admitted all key facts. The Defendant stood in front
of the Plaintiff repeatedly and took the Plaintiff's catch. The fish
belonged to the Plaintiff, it was taken without consent, and the
pattern of conduct demonstrates clear intent.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests:
1. $25 in compensatory damages.
2. $2,500 in legal fees.
3. An injunction against further interference.

DATED: This 8th day of August 2026
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top