Lawsuit: In Session amah853 v. SteelBirch6844 [2026] DCR 174

amah853 · Sep 20, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I was hired by SteelBirch6844 to make a Discord bot for their business. We talked for a while about what features they wanted and how much it would cost. At first they wanted more features, but later they decided they only wanted a smaller package for now and would upgrade later.

We agreed that the smaller package would cost DC$1,000. I then made a written contract that explained what was included, how payment worked, and how they could accept it.

I sent them the contract and told them that they could copy the acceptance message and change the username to theirs. They then sent the message, “I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.”

After that, they asked questions about the agreement, including whether the payment was one-time and whether they would get the source code.

The contract says that the DC$1,000 payment is due once the agreement is accepted. I later asked them to pay the DC$1,000, but they did not pay it. They said they did not need the bot yet and later argued that they did not accept the contract because they put quotation marks around the acceptance message.

From my perspective, they accepted the contract because they sent the exact acceptance statement right after I told them how to accept it and then continued talking about how the agreement would work.

I am asking the Court to require them to pay the DC$1,000 that is currently due under the agreement, along with any legal fees or other relief the Court finds appropriate.

I. PARTIES

The Plaintiff, amah853, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and is the developer identified in the Agreement underlying this action.
The Defendant, SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and is the client identified in the Agreement.

II. FACTS

On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.
The Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.
During the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.
The parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.
At one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.
The Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.
The Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").
The Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.
Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.
Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.
Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.
Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.
Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.
The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.
Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.
Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:

I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

17. On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.
18. Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:

you can copy my message and change the username for yours

19. The Defendant then transmitted:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

20. The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.
21. The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.
22. Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.
23. Among other things, the Defendant asked:

This is One time right

24. The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.
25. At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.
26. The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.
27. The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.
28. On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.
29. The Defendant responded:

I don't really need it rn

and subsequently:

Yet

30. The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.
31. The Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:

I did not

followed by:

I put it in qoutes

32. The parties continued discussing the dispute.
33. During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:

It was my fault for not clarifying

34. The Defendant further stated:

We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed

35. The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.
36. riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.
37. The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.
38. The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.
39. Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.
40. Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.
41. Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.
42. Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.
43. The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT

Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity.
Offer. The written Agreement constituted a clear offer setting forth the parties, services to be provided, functionality, payment obligations, licensing restrictions, future upgrade obligations, and method of acceptance.
Acceptance. The Defendant transmitted the exact acceptance statement prescribed by the Agreement immediately after the Plaintiff explained how the Defendant could digitally execute it.
Although the Defendant placed quotation marks around that statement, contractual acceptance is evaluated through the communication and surrounding circumstances.
Immediately before the Defendant sent the statement, the Plaintiff specifically instructed the Defendant to copy the acceptance language and substitute their username.
The Defendant did precisely that.
Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued asking questions concerning payment and source-code ownership under the Agreement rather than communicating rejection.
The Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct therefore constitute evidence of a positive and unambiguous acceptance when viewed objectively and in context.
Consideration. The Plaintiff agreed to develop and license software functionality to the Defendant, while the Defendant agreed to pay DC$1,000 for the Initial Package.
Intent. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations concerning features, price, package structure, future upgrades, software licensing, and execution of a formal written Agreement.
The Defendant's execution of the prescribed acceptance statement and subsequent questions concerning the Agreement further demonstrate objective intent to enter legal relations.
Capacity. There is no evidence known to the Plaintiff demonstrating that either party lacked capacity to enter the Agreement.
Accordingly, the requirements for formation of a valid and enforceable contract were satisfied.
The Redmont Civil Code Act recognizes breach of contract where a person fails, without lawful excuse, to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract. The violation is one of strict liability.
Under Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the Defendant's DC$1,000 Initial Fee became due upon acceptance.
The Defendant has failed to make that payment.
The Defendant's statement that they did not presently need the bot does not itself discharge an existing contractual payment obligation.
Nor does the subsequent wait-list discussion establish an unambiguous mutual modification extinguishing the Initial Fee.
The Plaintiff never expressly agreed to waive the DC$1,000 payment obligation.
The Defendant's continuing failure to pay the Initial Fee therefore constitutes breach of contract.
The Plaintiff has suffered a direct financial loss of DC$1,000, representing the contractual payment presently due and unpaid.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

DC$1,000 in compensatory damages, representing the Initial Fee presently due and unpaid under the Agreement.
Legal fees pursuant to Part III, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, including the applicable District Court minimum where authorized.
Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

The Plaintiff expressly does not seek in this action any contractual obligation that had not yet become due at the time the present breach arose, including the DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee or contractual hourly late charges associated with that Upgrade Fee.

EVIDENCE

P-001 - Bot Development Agreement

The written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement identifying amah853 as Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as Client.

Relevant provisions include:

• Section 3 - Initial Package;

• Section 4 - DC$1,000 Initial Fee and payment upon acceptance;

• Section 5 - Deferred Upgrade;

• Section 15 - Cancellation;

• Section 17 - No Implied Waiver;

• Section 20 - Entire Agreement and Modification; and

• Section 24 - Digital Acceptance.

P-002 - Negotiations and Agreed Scope

Discord messages showing the parties' negotiations concerning the bot's desired functionality, package price, reduction in scope, DC$1,000 initial package, and later upgrade arrangement.

P-003 - Delivery and Digital Acceptance

Discord messages showing:

a. the Plaintiff providing the written Agreement;

b. the Plaintiff instructing the Defendant that they could copy the acceptance message and substitute their username; and

c. the Defendant transmitting:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

P-004 - Post-Acceptance Conduct

Discord messages immediately following P-003 showing the Defendant asking whether the arrangement was a one-time payment and asking about source-code ownership.

P-005 - Demand for Payment and Refusal

Discord messages showing the Plaintiff requesting payment of the DC$1,000 Initial Fee and the Defendant responding that they did not presently need the bot.

P-006 - Contract Formation Dispute and Subsequent Discussion

Discord messages showing the Defendant later disputing acceptance based upon the quotation marks, acknowledging that they failed to clarify their intended timing, discussing the binding legality of the acceptance statement, and identifying hosting as a concern.

WITNESSES

amah853 - Plaintiff; may testify regarding negotiations, development work, preparation and transmission of the Agreement, digital acceptance, payment demands, and subsequent communications.
SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh - Defendant; party to the negotiations and Agreement.
riniki_ - Participant in the negotiations and subsequent wait-list discussion; may testify regarding the parties' negotiations, pricing arrangement, and the meaning and scope of the later wait-list discussion.

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

DATED: This 20th day of September, 2026.

amah853 · Sep 22, 2026

Note: edited to add (case) formatting.

CreeperTD · Thursday at 10:41 AM

amah853 said:
Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I was hired by SteelBirch6844 to make a Discord bot for their business. We talked for a while about what features they wanted and how much it would cost. At first they wanted more features, but later they decided they only wanted a smaller package for now and would upgrade later.

We agreed that the smaller package would cost DC$1,000. I then made a written contract that explained what was included, how payment worked, and how they could accept it.

I sent them the contract and told them that they could copy the acceptance message and change the username to theirs. They then sent the message, “I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.”

After that, they asked questions about the agreement, including whether the payment was one-time and whether they would get the source code.

The contract says that the DC$1,000 payment is due once the agreement is accepted. I later asked them to pay the DC$1,000, but they did not pay it. They said they did not need the bot yet and later argued that they did not accept the contract because they put quotation marks around the acceptance message.

From my perspective, they accepted the contract because they sent the exact acceptance statement right after I told them how to accept it and then continued talking about how the agreement would work.

I am asking the Court to require them to pay the DC$1,000 that is currently due under the agreement, along with any legal fees or other relief the Court finds appropriate.

I. PARTIES

The Plaintiff, amah853, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and is the developer identified in the Agreement underlying this action.

The Defendant, SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and is the client identified in the Agreement.

II. FACTS

On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.

The Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.

During the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.

The parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.

At one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.

The Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.

The Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").

The Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.

Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of:

a. /order;

b. /menu; and

c. pricing-management functionality.

Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.

Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.

Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.

Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.

The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.

Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.

Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.

Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:

"you can copy my message and change the username for yours"

The Defendant then transmitted:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.

The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.

Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

Among other things, the Defendant asked:

"This is One time right"

The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.

At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.

The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.

The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.

On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.

The Defendant responded:

"I don't really need it rn"

and subsequently:

"Yet"

The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.

The Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:

"I did not"

followed by:

"I put it in qoutes"

The parties continued discussing the dispute.

During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:

"It was my fault for not clarifying"

The Defendant further stated:

"We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed"

The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.

riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.

The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.

The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.

Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.

Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.

Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.

Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.

The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT

The Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1–43 above.

Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. Redmont courts continue to apply this five-part formation test. See Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37; Multiman155 et al. v. slapout [2026] FCR 52.

Offer. The written Agreement constituted a clear offer setting forth the parties, services to be provided, functionality, payment obligations, licensing restrictions, future upgrade obligations, and method of acceptance.

Acceptance. The Defendant transmitted the exact acceptance statement prescribed by the Agreement immediately after the Plaintiff explained how the Defendant could digitally execute it.

Although the Defendant placed quotation marks around that statement, contractual acceptance is evaluated through the communication and surrounding circumstances.

Immediately before the Defendant sent the statement, the Plaintiff specifically instructed the Defendant to copy the acceptance language and substitute their username.

The Defendant did precisely that.

Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued asking questions concerning payment and source-code ownership under the Agreement rather than communicating rejection.

The Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct therefore constitute evidence of a positive and unambiguous acceptance when viewed objectively and in context.

Redmont courts have recognized that intent and agreement may be demonstrated by surrounding negotiations and subsequent conduct. See Multiman155 et al. v. slapout [2026] FCR 52.

Consideration. The Plaintiff agreed to develop and license software functionality to the Defendant, while the Defendant agreed to pay DC$1,000 for the Initial Package.

Intent. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations concerning features, price, package structure, future upgrades, software licensing, and execution of a formal written Agreement.

The Defendant's execution of the prescribed acceptance statement and subsequent questions concerning the Agreement further demonstrate objective intent to enter legal relations.

Capacity. There is no evidence known to the Plaintiff demonstrating that either party lacked capacity to enter the Agreement.

Accordingly, the requirements for formation of a valid and enforceable contract were satisfied.

The Redmont Civil Code Act recognizes breach of contract where a person fails, without lawful excuse, to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract. The violation is one of strict liability. See Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37.

Under Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the Defendant's DC$1,000 Initial Fee became due upon acceptance.

The Defendant has failed to make that payment.

The Defendant's statement that they did not presently need the bot does not itself discharge an existing contractual payment obligation.

Nor does the subsequent wait-list discussion establish an unambiguous mutual modification extinguishing the Initial Fee.

The Plaintiff never expressly agreed to waive the DC$1,000 payment obligation.

The Defendant's continuing failure to pay the Initial Fee therefore constitutes breach of contract.

The Plaintiff has suffered a direct financial loss of DC$1,000, representing the contractual payment presently due and unpaid.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

DC$1,000 in compensatory damages, representing the Initial Fee presently due and unpaid under the Agreement.

Legal fees pursuant to Part III, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, including the applicable District Court minimum where authorized.

Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

The Plaintiff expressly does not seek in this action any contractual obligation that had not yet become due at the time the present breach arose, including the DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee or contractual hourly late charges associated with that Upgrade Fee.

EVIDENCE

P-001 - Bot Development Agreement

The written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement identifying amah853 as Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as Client.

Relevant provisions include:

• Section 3 - Initial Package;

• Section 4 - DC$1,000 Initial Fee and payment upon acceptance;

• Section 5 - Deferred Upgrade;

• Section 15 - Cancellation;

• Section 17 - No Implied Waiver;

• Section 20 - Entire Agreement and Modification; and

• Section 24 - Digital Acceptance.

P-002 - Negotiations and Agreed Scope

Discord messages showing the parties' negotiations concerning the bot's desired functionality, package price, reduction in scope, DC$1,000 initial package, and later upgrade arrangement.

P-003 - Delivery and Digital Acceptance

Discord messages showing:

a. the Plaintiff providing the written Agreement;

b. the Plaintiff instructing the Defendant that they could copy the acceptance message and substitute their username; and

c. the Defendant transmitting:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

View attachment 99760

P-004 - Post-Acceptance Conduct

Discord messages immediately following P-003 showing the Defendant asking whether the arrangement was a one-time payment and asking about source-code ownership.

View attachment 99761

P-005 - Demand for Payment and Refusal

Discord messages showing the Plaintiff requesting payment of the DC$1,000 Initial Fee and the Defendant responding that they did not presently need the bot.

View attachment 99762

P-006 - Contract Formation Dispute and Subsequent Discussion

Discord messages showing the Defendant later disputing acceptance based upon the quotation marks, acknowledging that they failed to clarify their intended timing, discussing the binding legality of the acceptance statement, and identifying hosting as a concern.

View attachment 99763

WITNESSES

amah853 - Plaintiff; may testify regarding negotiations, development work, preparation and transmission of the Agreement, digital acceptance, payment demands, and subsequent communications.

SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh - Defendant; party to the negotiations and Agreement.

riniki_ - Participant in the negotiations and subsequent wait-list discussion; may testify regarding the parties' negotiations, pricing arrangement, and the meaning and scope of the later wait-list discussion.

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

DATED: This 20th day of September, 2026.

This complaint must be amended in line with the proper template listed in Guide - Templates in order to comply with Rule 3.1. Please put the written statement inside a quote box, properly number your facts, and put all long quotes into quote boxes, as well.

amah853 · Thursday at 11:07 AM

CreeperTD said:
This complaint must be amended in line with the proper template listed in Guide - Templates in order to comply with Rule 3.1. Please put the written statement inside a quote box, properly number your facts, and put all long quotes into quote boxes, as well.

Apologies. The numbering reset due to the line breaks in the filing. That has now been corrected, along with the other issues the Court identified.

CreeperTD · Thursday at 11:28 AM

Writ of Summons

@.SteelBirch6844 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of amah853 v. SteelBirch6844 [2026] DCR 174.

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.

CreeperTD · Thursday at 2:56 PM

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER- WARNING

Defendant .SteelBirch6844 is hereby warned to not attempt to communicate with the Presiding Officer about this case in any manner outside of this court thread. Rule 1.4.1.1, a standing order of the courts, explicitly states that "All communications relevant to any ongoing case towards a presiding officer by any party to that case must be in a court-sanctioned forum."

The court limits this to a warning only because of the benign nature of the communication, and the apparent ignorance of the Defendant. Any subsequent breaches of court rules will be punished with a Contempt of Court charge.

So ordered.

S_Starlight · Saturday at 1:09 AM

I am representing, @.SteelBirch6844, for the defence.

CreeperTD · Saturday at 1:18 AM

S_Starlight said:
I am representing, @.SteelBirch6844, for the defence.

You have 72 hours to submit an Answer to Complaint.

CreeperTD · Saturday at 1:18 AM

Apologies, I misremembered the court rules and procedures. You have 48 hours.

S_Starlight · Saturday at 1:22 AM

Objection

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

In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, the supreme court ruled that 'raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source' as they can be easily edited.

THEREFORE inline with precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Defence move to strike P-002 from the record for being improper

S_Starlight · Saturday at 1:29 AM

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, the supreme court ruled that 'raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source' as they can be easily edited.

THEREFORE inline with precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Defence move to strike P-002 from the record for being improper

editing to change from federal to district

CreeperTD · Saturday at 1:37 AM

S_Starlight said:
Objection

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

In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, the supreme court ruled that 'raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source' as they can be easily edited.

THEREFORE inline with precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Defence move to strike P-002 from the record for being improper

Objection OVERRULED. Not only have proceedings not yet entered discovery, during which additional evidence to corroborate the text logs could be entered into the court, but the Plaintiff has called on multiple witnesses, which are also a “secondary source” of evidence.

S_Starlight · Saturday at 1:46 AM

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

The defence did not use "..." in the picture showed below. He claimed that the defendant transmitted I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

However the defence use " I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

This is a huge problem as the main question in court is whether "..." makes it clear and precise that the defendant is agreeing to the contract

THEREFORE, the defendant wishes for the court to warn the plaintiff for perjury

S_Starlight · Saturday at 1:47 AM

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

The defence did not use "..." in the picture showed below. He claimed that the defendant transmitted I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

However the defence use " I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

This is a huge problem as the main question in court is whether "..." makes it clear and precise that the defendant is agreeing to the contract

THEREFORE, the defendant wishes for the court to warn the plaintiff for perjury

Again change federal to district

S_Starlight · Saturday at 1:49 AM

A file can't be attack to the objection so I will add it here

S_Starlight · Saturday at 2:17 AM

Answer to Complaint

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

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844/._.aahh
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defence affirms that On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.

The defence affirms that the Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.

The defence affirms that during the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.

The defence affirms that the parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.

The defence affirms that at one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.

The defence affirms that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.

The defence affirms that the Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").

The defence affirms that the Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.

The defence affirms Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.

The defence affirms Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.

The defence affirms that Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.

The defence affirms Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.

The defence affirms Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.

The defence affirms The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.

The defence affirms Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.

The defence affirms Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

The defence affirms On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.

The defence affirms Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:
you can copy my message and change the username for yours

The defence affirmsThe Defendant then transmitted:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

The defence affirms that The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.

The defence affirms that The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.

The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.
Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

The defence affirms The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.

The defence neither affirms nor deny At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.

The defence denies that The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.

The defence neither affirms nor denies that The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.

The defence affirms that On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.

The defence affirms The Defendant responded:
I don't really need it rn

and subsequently:

Yet

The defence affirms The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.

The defence affirmsThe Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:
I did not

followed by:
I put it in qoutes

The defence affirms The parties continued discussing the dispute.

The defence affirms During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:
It was my fault for not clarifying

The defence affirms The Defendant further stated:
We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed

The defence affirms that The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.

The defence affirms that riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.

The defence affirms The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.

The defence neither affirmed nor deny The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.

The defence affirms that Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.

The defence affirms that Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.

The defence affirms that Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.

The defence affirms that Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.

The defence affirms that The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

II. DEFENCES
1.Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires, among other elements, a clear offer and positive and unambiguous acceptance. The defence disputes that the communication relied upon by the plaintiff constituted such acceptance. The defendant’s position is that the quotation marks indicated that the defendant was reproducing or quoting the proposed acceptance wording and not agreeing to the contract.

2. Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

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 26 day of September 2026

CreeperTD · Saturday at 9:03 AM

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

The defence did not use "..." in the picture showed below. He claimed that the defendant transmitted I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

However the defence use " I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

This is a huge problem as the main question in court is whether "..." makes it clear and precise that the defendant is agreeing to the contract

THEREFORE, the defendant wishes for the court to warn the plaintiff for perjury

Objection OVERRULED. This a minor mistake that does not affect the substance of the Plaintiff’s filing, it does not in any way disadvantage the Defendant, and it does not harm this court’s proceedings.

The Plaintiff is asked to make minor corrections to fix the error so graciously pointed out by the Defense Counsel.

amah853 · Saturday at 10:24 AM

CreeperTD said:
Objection OVERRULED. This a minor mistake that does not affect the substance of the Plaintiff’s filing, it does not in any way disadvantage the Defendant, and it does not harm this court’s proceedings.

The Plaintiff is asked to make minor corrections to fix the error so graciously pointed out by the Defense Counsel.

Your Honor, the relevant corrections have been made to the original Complaint.

I would also like to clarify that, in addition to the witnesses identified who can corroborate the submitted text records, the Plaintiff is prepared to provide screenshots of the relevant Discord communications to further corroborate and authenticate those records if the Court requires them.

CreeperTD · Saturday at 11:00 AM

S_Starlight said:
Answer to Complaint

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

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844/._.aahh
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defence affirms that On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.

The defence affirms that the Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.

The defence affirms that during the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.

The defence affirms that the parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.

The defence affirms that at one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.

The defence affirms that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.

The defence affirms that the Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").

The defence affirms that the Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.

The defence affirms Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.

The defence affirms Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.

The defence affirms that Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.

The defence affirms Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.

The defence affirms Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.

The defence affirms The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.

The defence affirms Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.

The defence affirms Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

The defence affirms On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.

The defence affirms Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:
you can copy my message and change the username for yours

The defence affirmsThe Defendant then transmitted:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

The defence affirms that The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.

The defence affirms that The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.

The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.
Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

The defence affirms The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.

The defence neither affirms nor deny At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.

The defence denies that The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.

The defence neither affirms nor denies that The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.

The defence affirms that On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.

The defence affirms The Defendant responded:
I don't really need it rn

and subsequently:

Yet

The defence affirms The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.

The defence affirmsThe Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:
I did not

followed by:
I put it in qoutes

The defence affirms The parties continued discussing the dispute.

The defence affirms During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:
It was my fault for not clarifying

The defence affirms The Defendant further stated:
We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed

The defence affirms that The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.

The defence affirms that riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.

The defence affirms The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.

The defence neither affirmed nor deny The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.

The defence affirms that Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.

The defence affirms that Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.

The defence affirms that Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.

The defence affirms that Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.

The defence affirms that The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

II. DEFENCES
1.Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires, among other elements, a clear offer and positive and unambiguous acceptance. The defence disputes that the communication relied upon by the plaintiff constituted such acceptance. The defendant’s position is that the quotation marks indicated that the defendant was reproducing or quoting the proposed acceptance wording and not agreeing to the contract.

2. Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

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 26 day of September 2026

Counselor, this answer doesn't follow the requirements set out for Answers in Rule 3.2, which states that "All answers to a pleading that affirm or effectively plead no contest to a fact shall be text colored and bolded in green, and all others shall be text colored and bolded in red."

In addition, it doesn't follow the format strictly set out in Guide - Templates for an Answer to Complaint, which Rule 3.2 requires. I suggest reviewing the template set out in this Guide created by Yours Truly for a good template setting out general expectations.

Finally, you have failed to hyperlink your sources as required by Rule 1.10. Please do not make any changes beyond formatting at this time.

S_Starlight · Saturday at 8:55 PM

Answer to Complaint

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

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence

Answer to Complaint

~~affirms~~ that on or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.
2. The defence ~~affirms~~ that the Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.
3. The defence ~~affirms~~ that during the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.
4. The defence ~~affirms~~ that the parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.
5. The defence ~~affirms~~ that at one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.
6. The defence ~~affirms~~ that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.
7. The defence ~~affirms~~ that the Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").
8. The defence ~~affirms~~ that the Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.
9. The defence ~~affirms~~ Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.
10. The defence ~~affirms~~ Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.
11. The defence ~~affirms~~ that Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.
12. The defence ~~affirms~~ Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.
13. The defence ~~affirms~~ Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.
14. The defence ~~affirms~~ The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.
15. The defence ~~affirms~~ Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.
16. The defence ~~affirms~~ Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:

I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

17. The defence ~~affirms~~ On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.

18. The defence ~~affirms~~ that Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:
you can copy my message and change the username for yours

19.
The defence ~~affirms~~ The Defendant then transmitted:
"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

20. The defence ~~affirms~~ that The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement as The Defendant admits transmitting the quoted words. The Defendant denies that the transmission constituted acceptance of the Agreement.

21. The defence ~~deny~~ that The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement. The defendant was using quotation marks to communicate than to accept it.
22. The defence ~~affirms~~ Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. The defence ~~affirms~~ Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right
24. The defence ~~affirms~~ ~~the~~ defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.
25.T~~The defence~~ ~~denies~~ that At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement as the defendant uses a "..."
26. The defence ~~denies~~ that The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement. This is because the defence did not estableish any point of unambiguous acceptance
27. The defence ~~affirms~~ that The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.
28. The defence ~~affirms~~ that On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.
29. The defence ~~affirms~~
~~The Defendant responded:~~

~~I don't really need it rn~~

~~and subsequently:~~

~~Yet~~

~~30. The defence~~ ~~affirms in part~~ ~~. The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ ~~that the plaintiff has informed the defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment. The defence~~ ~~denies~~ that the plaintiff said contract was even accepted in the first place

31.
The defence ~~affirms~~ ~~The Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:~~

~~I did not~~

~~followed by:~~

~~I put it in qoutes~~

~~32.The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ that The parties continued discussing the dispute.

33. The defence ~~affirms~~
~~During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:~~

~~It was my fault for not clarifying~~

~~34. The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ ~~that~~
~~The Defendant further stated:~~

~~We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed~~

~~35. The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ that The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.

36. The defence ~~affirms~~ that riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.

37. The defence ~~affirm~~ that The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.
38. The defence ~~affirms in parts.~~ ~~The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ ~~that The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished. However, the Defendant~~ ~~denies~~ that this is relevant to the formation of a contract, because the Defendant's position is that no binding contract was formed in the first place.

39. The defence ~~affirms in parts.~~ ~~The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ that Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear. The Defendant ~~denies~~ that it can create or preserve contractual obligations where no binding contract was formed.

40. The defence ~~affirms in parts. The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ ~~that Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement. The defence~~ ~~denies~~ that it establishes an enforceable obligation where the Agreement was never validly accepted.

41. The defence ~~affirms in parts~~ ~~The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ that Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification. The Defence ~~denies~~ that it establishes an existing contractual obligation where no valid acceptance occurred.

42. The defence ~~affirms in parts~~ ~~The defence~~ ~~affirms~~ that Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights. The defence ~~denies~~ that it establishes an enforceable obligation where the Agreement was never validly accepted.

43. The defence ~~affims~~ that The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

II. DEFENCES
1. Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, Act of Congress - Contracts Act, a valid contract requires, among other elements, a clear offer and positive and unambiguous acceptance. The defence disputes that the communication relied upon by the plaintiff constituted such acceptance. The defendant’s position is that the quotation marks indicated that the defendant was reproducing or quoting the proposed acceptance wording and not agreeing to the contract.

2. Under the cambridge dictionary, quotation mark, a quotation mark is either of the symbols “ or ”, or ‘ or ’, put around a word or phrase to show that someone has written or said it. With addition of P-003, the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

3. A breach of contract occurs when a party fials to fulfill contractual obligations (see Contracts Act, § 7(1), https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/) However, the contract was never positive and unambiguosly agreed upon in the first place. Hence a breach of contract does not fulfil

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 is 27 day of September 2026

CreeperTD · Saturday at 9:21 PM

S_Starlight said:
Answer to Complaint

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

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence affirms that on or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.
2. The defence affirms that the Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.
3. The defence affirms that during the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.
4. The defence affirms that the parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.
5. The defence affirms that at one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.
6. The defence affirms that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.
7. The defence affirms that the Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").
8. The defence affirms that the Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.
9. The defence affirms Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.
10. The defence affirms Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.
11. The defence affirms that Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.
12. The defence affirms Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.
13. The defence affirms Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.
14. The defence affirms The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.
15. The defence affirms Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.
16. The defence affirms Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:

I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

17. The defence affirms On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.

18. The defence affirms that Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:
you can copy my message and change the username for yours

19.
The defence affirms The Defendant then transmitted:
"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

20. The defence affirms that The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement as The Defendant admits transmitting the quoted words. The Defendant denies that the transmission constituted acceptance of the Agreement.

21. The defence deny that The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement. The defendant was using quotation marks to communicate than to accept it.
22. The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. The defence affirms Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right
24. The defence affirms the defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.
25.TThe defence denies that At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement as the defendant uses a "..."
26. The defence denies that The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement. This is because the defence did not estableish any point of unambiguous acceptance
27. The defence affirms that The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.
28. The defence affirms that On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.
29. The defence affirms
The Defendant responded:

and subsequently:

30. The defence affirms in part . The defence affirms that the plaintiff has informed the defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment. The defence denies that the plaintiff said contract was even accepted in the first place

31.
The defence affirms The Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:

followed by:

32.The defence affirms that The parties continued discussing the dispute.

33. The defence affirms
During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:

34. The defence affirms that
The Defendant further stated:

35. The defence affirms that The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.

36. The defence affirms that riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.

37. The defence affirm that The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.
38. The defence affirms in parts. The defence affirms that The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished. However, the Defendant denies that this is relevant to the formation of a contract, because the Defendant's position is that no binding contract was formed in the first place.

39. The defence affirms in parts. The defence affirms that Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear. The Defendant denies that it can create or preserve contractual obligations where no binding contract was formed.

40. The defence affirms in parts. The defence affirms that Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement. The defence denies that it establishes an enforceable obligation where the Agreement was never validly accepted.

41. The defence affirms in parts The defence affirms that Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification. The Defence denies that it establishes an existing contractual obligation where no valid acceptance occurred.

42. The defence affirms in parts The defence affirms that Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights. The defence denies that it establishes an enforceable obligation where the Agreement was never validly accepted.

43. The defence affims that The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

II. DEFENCES
1. Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, Act of Congress - Contracts Act, a valid contract requires, among other elements, a clear offer and positive and unambiguous acceptance. The defence disputes that the communication relied upon by the plaintiff constituted such acceptance. The defendant’s position is that the quotation marks indicated that the defendant was reproducing or quoting the proposed acceptance wording and not agreeing to the contract.

2. Under the cambridge dictionary, quotation mark, a quotation mark is either of the symbols “ or ”, or ‘ or ’, put around a word or phrase to show that someone has written or said it. With addition of P-003, the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

3. A breach of contract occurs when a party fials to fulfill contractual obligations (see Contracts Act, § 7(1), https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/) However, the contract was never positive and unambiguosly agreed upon in the first place. Hence a breach of contract does not fulfil

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 is 27 day of September 2026

Why has information been altered from the original complaint, the court specifically instructed you to change nothing other than the formatting, and yet you have altered whether or not the defense affirmed, denied, or did not contest certain facts. This is your one and only warning: amend this post to reflect the same contents as your initial answer, but with the correct formatting as required by the Court Rules and Procedures. You have 12 hours to do so.

S_Starlight · Saturday at 10:25 PM

Answer to Complaint

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

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844/._.aahh
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence affirms that On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.

2. The defence affirms that the Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.

3. The defence affirms that during the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.

4. The defence affirms that the parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.

5. The defence affirms that at one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.

6. The defence affirms that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.

7. The defence affirms that the Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").

8. The defence affirms that the Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.

9. The defence affirms Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.

10. The defence affirms Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.

11. The defence affirms that Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.

12. The defence affirms Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.

13. The defence affirms Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.

14. The defence affirms The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.

15. The defence affirms Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.

16. The defence affirms Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

17. The defence affirms On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.

18. The defence affirms Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:
you can copy my message and change the username for yours

19. The defence affirms The Defendant then transmitted:
"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

20. The defence affirms that The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.

21. The defence affirms that The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.

22. The defence affirms that Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.
Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

24. The defence affirms The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.

25. The defence neither affirms nor deny At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.

26. The defence denies that The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.

27. The defence neither affirms nor denies that The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.

28. The defence affirms that On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.

29. The defence affirms The Defendant responded:
I don't really need it rn

and subsequently:

Yet

30. The defence affirms The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.

31. The defence affirms The Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:
I did not

followed by:
I put it in qoutes

32. The defence affirms The parties continued discussing the dispute.

33. The defence affirms During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:
It was my fault for not clarifying

34. The defence affirms The Defendant further stated:
We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed

35. The defence affirms that The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.

36. The defence affirms that riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.

37. The defence affirms The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.

38. The defence neither affirmed nor deny The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.

39. The defence affirms that Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.

40 The defence affirms that Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.

41. The defence affirms that Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.

42. The defence affirms that Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.

43. The defence affirms that The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

II. DEFENCES
1. Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, Act of Congress - Contracts Act, a valid contract requires, among other elements, a clear offer and positive and unambiguous acceptance. The defence disputes that the communication relied upon by the plaintiff constituted such acceptance. The defendant’s position is that the quotation marks indicated that the defendant was reproducing or quoting the proposed acceptance wording and not agreeing to the contract.
2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

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 27 day of september 2026

CreeperTD · Saturday at 10:49 PM

S_Starlight said:
Answer to Complaint

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

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844/._.aahh
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence affirms that On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.

2. The defence affirms that the Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.

3. The defence affirms that during the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.

4. The defence affirms that the parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.

5. The defence affirms that at one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.

6. The defence affirms that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.

7. The defence affirms that the Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").

8. The defence affirms that the Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.

9. The defence affirms Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.

10. The defence affirms Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.

11. The defence affirms that Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.

12. The defence affirms Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.

13. The defence affirms Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.

14. The defence affirms The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.

15. The defence affirms Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.

16. The defence affirms Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

17. The defence affirms On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.

18. The defence affirms Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:
you can copy my message and change the username for yours

19. The defence affirms The Defendant then transmitted:
"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

20. The defence affirms that The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.

21. The defence affirms that The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.

22. The defence affirms that Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.
Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

24. The defence affirms The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.

25. The defence neither affirms nor deny At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.

26. The defence denies that The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.

27. The defence neither affirms nor denies that The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.

28. The defence affirms that On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.

29. The defence affirms The Defendant responded:
I don't really need it rn

and subsequently:

Yet

30. The defence affirms The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.

31. The defence affirms The Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:
I did not

followed by:
I put it in qoutes

32. The defence affirms The parties continued discussing the dispute.

33. The defence affirms During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:
It was my fault for not clarifying

34. The defence affirms The Defendant further stated:
We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed

35. The defence affirms that The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.

36. The defence affirms that riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.

37. The defence affirms The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.

38. The defence neither affirmed nor deny The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.

39. The defence affirms that Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.

40 The defence affirms that Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.

41. The defence affirms that Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.

42. The defence affirms that Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.

43. The defence affirms that The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

II. DEFENCES
1. Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, Act of Congress - Contracts Act, a valid contract requires, among other elements, a clear offer and positive and unambiguous acceptance. The defence disputes that the communication relied upon by the plaintiff constituted such acceptance. The defendant’s position is that the quotation marks indicated that the defendant was reproducing or quoting the proposed acceptance wording and not agreeing to the contract.
2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

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 27 day of september 2026

I told you to edit your last post, but you have fulfilled the court's request. Your other posts shall be struck from the record.

We shall now enter discovery, which shall last for five days. The court reminds both sides that discovery may be ended early upon mutual agreement by both parties.

S_Starlight · Saturday at 11:06 PM

Evidence

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY Evidence

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence into the record:

The actual definition of a "..."

quotation marks

a pair of marks (" ") or (' ') used before and after a group of words to show…

dictionary.cambridge.org

[/motion]

amah853 · Saturday at 11:07 PM

CreeperTD said:
I told you to edit your last post, but you have fulfilled the court's request. Your other posts shall be struck from the record.

We shall now enter discovery, which shall last for five days. The court reminds both sides that discovery may be ended early upon mutual agreement by both parties.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully notes two remaining issues in the Defendant's corrected Answer.

First, paragraphs 22 and 23 appear to duplicate the same allegation. Paragraph 22 states that “immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement,” and paragraph 23 begins with the same statement before continuing with the Defendant's alleged question regarding whether the payment was one-time. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the duplicate be corrected so that the Answer may be referenced clearly during discovery and further proceedings.

Second, Defence 2 remains materially ambiguous. It states that “P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff.” Those are two materially different positions, and the sentence does not make clear which position the Defendant claims P-003 actually establishes.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification of Defence 2 so that the Plaintiff may understand and respond to the defense being asserted during discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

amah853
Plaintiff

S_Starlight · Saturday at 11:08 PM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY Evidence

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence into the record:

The actual definition of a "..."

quotation marks

a pair of marks (" ") or (' ') used before and after a group of words to show…

dictionary.cambridge.org

I have edited the title from motion to evidence

CreeperTD · Saturday at 11:08 PM

S_Starlight said:
Evidence

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY Evidence

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence into the record:

The actual definition of a "..."

quotation marks

a pair of marks (" ") or (' ') used before and after a group of words to show…

dictionary.cambridge.org

[/motion]

How is this relevant to the case at hand?

CreeperTD · Saturday at 11:09 PM

amah853 said:
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully notes two remaining issues in the Defendant's corrected Answer.

First, paragraphs 22 and 23 appear to duplicate the same allegation. Paragraph 22 states that “immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement,” and paragraph 23 begins with the same statement before continuing with the Defendant's alleged question regarding whether the payment was one-time. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the duplicate be corrected so that the Answer may be referenced clearly during discovery and further proceedings.

Second, Defence 2 remains materially ambiguous. It states that “P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff.” Those are two materially different positions, and the sentence does not make clear which position the Defendant claims P-003 actually establishes.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification of Defence 2 so that the Plaintiff may understand and respond to the defense being asserted during discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

amah853
Plaintiff

What is this, an objection? If so, please file it as one.

S_Starlight · Saturday at 11:11 PM

CreeperTD said:
How is this relevant to the case at hand?

Your honor, the question is this court remain at "Does quotation mark deem the defendant liable to the agreement of the contract" Hence I wish to submit the actual definition of such punctuation.

amah853 · Saturday at 11:21 PM

CreeperTD said:
What is this, an objection? If so, please file it as one.

Your Honor,

Apologies for the confusion. I intended only to bring the remaining issues to the Court's attention rather than formally object to the Answer.

However, as I am requesting that the duplicate paragraphs be corrected and Defence 2 be clarified, I understand the Court's direction and will raise those issues through an objection.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

The Plaintiff objects to two remaining issues in the Defendant's corrected Answer.

First, paragraphs 22 and 23 duplicate the same allegation. Paragraph 22 states that “immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement,” and paragraph 23 begins with the same statement before continuing with the Defendant's alleged question regarding whether the payment was one-time.

Second, Defence 2 remains materially ambiguous. It states that “P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff.” These are two materially different positions, and the Defence does not make clear which position the Defendant claims P-003 actually establishes.

This ambiguity prevents the Plaintiff from knowing precisely what position is being asserted and responding to it during discovery.

THEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court direct the Defendant to correct the duplicated paragraph and clarify Defence 2.

CreeperTD · Saturday at 11:40 PM

amah853 said:
Your Honor,

Apologies for the confusion. I intended only to bring the remaining issues to the Court's attention rather than formally object to the Answer.

However, as I am requesting that the duplicate paragraphs be corrected and Defence 2 be clarified, I understand the Court's direction and will raise those issues through an objection.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

The Plaintiff objects to two remaining issues in the Defendant's corrected Answer.

First, paragraphs 22 and 23 duplicate the same allegation. Paragraph 22 states that “immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement,” and paragraph 23 begins with the same statement before continuing with the Defendant's alleged question regarding whether the payment was one-time.

Second, Defence 2 remains materially ambiguous. It states that “P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff.” These are two materially different positions, and the Defence does not make clear which position the Defendant claims P-003 actually establishes.

This ambiguity prevents the Plaintiff from knowing precisely what position is being asserted and responding to it during discovery.

THEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court direct the Defendant to correct the duplicated paragraph and clarify Defence 2.

Objection sustained. Defense counsellor, please correct this ambiguity in your complaint by doing the following:
1. Remove the (seemingly accidentally) duplicated affirmation/denial of a fact by once again referencing the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
2. Amend Defense 2 to clarify what Defense counsel is claiming. Did the Defendant communicate assent, or did they not? What is the Defense attempting to assert here?

Defense is required to make a motion to amend specifying the specific changes that will be made. Failure to abide by this order as requested by the court will result in being found in contempt, as the court is tired of its orders not being carried out.

CreeperTD · Sunday at 12:12 AM

S_Starlight said:
Evidence

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY Evidence

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence into the record:

The actual definition of a "..."

quotation marks

a pair of marks (" ") or (' ') used before and after a group of words to show…

dictionary.cambridge.org

[/motion]

This evidence entirely superfluous. It is well known that quotation marks are commonly used to indicate that text is quoted, and there is no need to submit such evidence. The court strikes this evidence submission sua sponte.

S_Starlight · Sunday at 1:42 AM

Motion

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

The defence has comply with order of the court about editing

1. The defence has edited paragraphs 31 and 32

2. The defence has change defence 2

2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

CreeperTD · Sunday at 1:43 AM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence has comply with order of the court about editing

This is not what I asked for. Whatever you just did, undo it and comply with the given court order or you will be held in contempt.

CreeperTD · Sunday at 1:49 AM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence has comply with order of the court about editing

1. The defence has edited paragraphs 31 and 32

2. The defence has change defence 2

2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

You test the patience of this court to an unprecedented degree. This is what you must do, step by step, as you have failed to exercise proper judgment when making your filings:
1. List the text that you edited before inside a motion titled “Motion to Amend”
2. Strike through that original text.
3. Next to that text, write out what new text you are replacing it with in line with this court’s order.

Further, the Answer has been reverted to its original version. Do not edit it without the court's approval.

CreeperTD · Sunday at 2:16 AM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence has comply with order of the court about editing

22. The defence affirms that Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. ~~The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.~~
The defendant affirms Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was ~~actually communicating assent~~ or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

All edits to this are undone, as they were not declared to the court, nor did the court ask this post to be edited. Further unauthorized editing will result in being held in contempt.

S_Starlight · Sunday at 2:34 AM

Motion

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

The defence has comply with order of the court about editing

22. The defence affirms that Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. ~~The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.~~
The defendant affirms Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was ~~actually communicating assent~~ or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

S_Starlight · Sunday at 2:35 AM

Motion to comply is edited to motion to Amend

CreeperTD · Sunday at 2:36 AM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence has comply with order of the court about editing

22. The defence affirms that Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. ~~The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.~~
The defendant affirms Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was ~~actually communicating assent~~ or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

The court grants permission for the amendments to be made.

S_Starlight · Sunday at 2:39 AM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence has comply with order of the court about editing

22. The defence affirms that Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.

23. ~~The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.~~
The defendant affirms Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right

2 Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was ~~actually communicating assent~~ or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.

Your honor, motion edited

S_Starlight · Sunday at 3:21 AM

Motion

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

The defence request for the court to the plaintiff to present evidence of them actually coding the bot and not just displaying the command on the discord ticket

1. The plaintiff said that they had already been working on the bot but the evidence shown was the plaintiff just displaying what command there will be. The defence would like to see what progress has the plaintiff have done.

S_Starlight · Sunday at 3:48 AM

Your honor, permission to edit the motion to include a word order

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence request for the court to the plaintiff to present evidence of them actually coding the bot and not just displaying the command on the discord ticket

1. The plaintiff said that they had already been working on the bot but the evidence shown was the plaintiff just displaying what command there will be. The defence would like to see what progress has the plaintiff have done.

amah853 · Sunday at 2:09 PM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence request for the court to the plaintiff to present evidence of them actually coding the bot and not just displaying the command on the discord ticket

1. The plaintiff said that they had already been working on the bot but the evidence shown was the plaintiff just displaying what command there will be. The defence would like to see what progress has the plaintiff have done.

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to respond to the Defence's pending Motion to Compel before the Court rules upon it, as the Plaintiff opposes the request on grounds of relevance and the scope of the requested disclosure.

CreeperTD · Sunday at 2:21 PM

amah853 said:
Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to respond to the Defence's pending Motion to Compel before the Court rules upon it, as the Plaintiff opposes the request on grounds of relevance and the scope of the requested disclosure.

Granted, you have 24 hours to do so.

amah853 · Sunday at 2:39 PM

CreeperTD said:
Granted, you have 24 hours to do so.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff objects to the Defence's Motion to Compel. The Defence seeks to "see what progress has the plaintiff have done"; however, the issue presently before the Court is whether the use of quotation marks affects the validity of the Defendant's acceptance of the agreement. The extent of the Plaintiff's development progress does not bear on that issue and is therefore not relevant to the matter presently before the Court.

Furthermore, requiring disclosure of the Plaintiff's full development progress would expose confidential source code, the confidentiality of which is material to the Plaintiff's business and is protected by the agreement at issue.

Should the Court nevertheless find evidence that coding had commenced relevant, the Plaintiff requests that any production be limited to evidence reasonably sufficient to establish that fact. The Plaintiff is prepared to submit relevant script files and their associated metadata privately to the Judge through Closed Court.

amah853 · Sunday at 2:41 PM

Note: edited to add hyperlink

CreeperTD · Sunday at 3:14 PM

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence request for the court to the plaintiff to present evidence of them actually coding the bot and not just displaying the command on the discord ticket

1. The plaintiff said that they had already been working on the bot but the evidence shown was the plaintiff just displaying what command there will be. The defence would like to see what progress has the plaintiff have done.

amah853 said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff objects to the Defence's Motion to Compel. The Defence seeks to "see what progress has the plaintiff have done"; however, the issue presently before the Court is whether the use of quotation marks affects the validity of the Defendant's acceptance of the agreement. The extent of the Plaintiff's development progress does not bear on that issue and is therefore not relevant to the matter presently before the Court.

Furthermore, requiring disclosure of the Plaintiff's full development progress would expose confidential source code, the confidentiality of which is material to the Plaintiff's business and is protected by the agreement at issue.

Should the Court nevertheless find evidence that coding had commenced relevant, the Plaintiff requests that any production be limited to evidence reasonably sufficient to establish that fact. The Plaintiff is prepared to submit relevant script files and their associated metadata privately to the Judge through Closed Court.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON OBJECTION

Before making any comments on this objection, the court first notes that Motions to Compel are meant to be used for a court to order a third party to produce information or evidence relevant to the case, or to force opposing counsel to comply with a previously submitted discovery request (see Guide - Motions). Rule 4.7 allows for a party to request a submission of evidence, which can then be opposed to by the opposing party before the judge. Counsellors, please ensure that you are using the correct motions.

Defense Counsel states that the reason for the request is:

The plaintiff said that they had already been working on the bot but the evidence shown was the plaintiff just displaying what command there will be. The defence would like to see what progress has the plaintiff have done.

The court believes that the Defense is referring to Fact 27 of Plaintiff's complaint, which states "The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions." For the purposes of ruling, the court will assume this to be the case.

The Answer to Complaint filed by the Defense counsel at this time effectively does not contest Fact 27 presented by the Plaintiff. Unless the Defense amends their answer, the material requested by Defense Counsel is irrelevant to the case, as the fact is not being contested.

This objection is SUSTAINED, and Defense Counsel's Motion to Compel is DENIED.

The court notes to the Defense Counselor that unless facts are denied in the Answer, they are to be assumed as true as long as they are supported by evidence. Discovery is the time to request to make changes to both the Complaint and the Answer as necessary. Both counselors are encouraged to review the Court Rules and Procedures.

So Ordered.

amah853 · Sunday at 6:29 PM

Your Honor,

Both parties consent to ending Discovery early pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures and request that the Court proceed to the next phase of trial.

CreeperTD · Sunday at 6:30 PM

amah853 said:
Your Honor,

Both parties consent to ending Discovery early pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures and request that the Court proceed to the next phase of trial.

Does Defense Counsel confirm this @S_Starlight?

amah853 · Sunday at 6:30 PM

Note: edit to add screenshot

CreeperTD · Sunday at 6:31 PM

amah853 said:
Note: edit to add screenshot

I still wish them to state it in this courtroom.

S_Starlight · Sunday at 6:32 PM

CreeperTD said:
Does Defense Counsel confirm this @S_Starlight?

Your honor, defence agrees

CreeperTD · Sunday at 6:39 PM

Very well, discovery has ended. Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit an Opening Statement to the court.

amah853 · Sunday at 8:24 PM

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case stands on just on major question: whether the Defendant’s use of quotation marks prevented their otherwise clear acceptance message from constituting acceptance of the Agreement.

The material surrounding facts are largely undisputed.

The parties negotiated the development of a Discord bot and ultimately reached an arrangement for an initial package costing DC$1,000. A written Agreement was then prepared which expressly provided for digital acceptance and supplied language that could be used to accept it.

The Plaintiff provided the Agreement to the Defendant and explained how the Defendant could accept it using their own username. The Defendant did not copy the Plaintiff’s message verbatim, but they sent a clear and affirmative acceptance as defined in the Agreement, stating:

“I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.”

The Defense does not dispute that the Defendant used clear acceptance language, identified themselves by their own username, sent the message immediately after receiving instructions explaining how to accept the Agreement, and continued discussing the Agreement immediately afterward.

The Defendant then asked questions concerning how the Agreement operated, including whether the payment was one-time and whether source code was included. The Defendant did not concurrently state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, or rejection.

Only after payment was later requested did the Defendant take the position that the quotation marks meant the Agreement had never been accepted.

The Plaintiff submits that contractual acceptance must be considered in the context in which the communication was made. Here, the context demonstrates a positive and unambiguous manifestation of assent: the Defendant was provided with an acceptance method, responded with a clear statement that they had read and agreed to the Agreement, used their own identity, and immediately proceeded to discuss rights and obligations under the Agreement.

Quotation marks do not, by themselves, erase the meaning communicated by the surrounding circumstances. A party should not be permitted to make a clear statement of agreement and later avoid its legal effect merely by pointing to the formatting used when the statement was sent.

This case also presents an important issue of legal precedent. If quotation marks alone can invalidate an otherwise clear acceptance, then countless contracts formed through digital messages, online forms, and other informal communications could be challenged or declared void based on formatting rather than substance. Parties could make clear statements of agreement and later attempt to avoid their obligations by arguing that the words were placed inside quotation marks, even where the surrounding circumstances show that the statement was intended as acceptance.

Such a rule would create substantial uncertainty in modern contract law. It would undermine the reasonable understanding that clear words of agreement, viewed in context, have legal significance. The Court’s decision in this case will therefore affect not only the parties before it, but also the reliability and enforceability of many contracts throughout Redmont.

The remaining elements of contract formation are likewise satisfied. The written Agreement set out a clear offer, consideration existed through the exchange of development and licensing services for payment, the parties’ negotiations demonstrated an intention to create legal relations, and no issue of capacity has been raised.

Under Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the DC$1,000 Initial Fee became due upon acceptance.

The Defendant has not paid that fee.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff will ask this Court to find that a valid and enforceable contract was formed, that the Defendant breached that Agreement by failing to make the required DC$1,000 payment, and to award the relief requested in the Complaint.

Thank you,

amah853
Plaintiff

CreeperTD · Sunday at 8:27 PM

Defense Counsel now has 72 hours to post their Opening Statement .

S_Starlight · Sunday at 10:47 PM

Your honor, the defence wishes for another 48h extension due to some personal issue, making it 120h.

S_Starlight · Sunday at 11:23 PM

S_Starlight said:
Your honor, the defence wishes for another 48h extension due to some personal issue, making it 120h.

Your honor, disregard. Opening statement will be given in 72h

S_Starlight · 2026-09-28T00:15:04-0400

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The court be please'd.

The defendant's stance is simple: the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant clearly accepted the Agreement.

A contract under the Contract Act (www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/) must consist of offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity.

While the Defence does not dispute that the Agreement was sent, and the Defendant does not dispute that the message containing the words “I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement” was sent. The issue is what the message actually communicated. Immediately before sending the message, the plaintiff told the defendant, “You can copy my message and change the username for yours.”

The defence acknowledges that the wording itself resembles the prescribed acceptance language. However, the issue before the Court is not whether the words were copied; it is whether the Defendant's communication, viewed in its full context, constituted a positive and unambiguous acceptance.

The court already dictated, and I quote, “ It is well known that quotation marks are commonly used to indicate that text is quoted, and there is no need to submit such evidence.”

The Defendant then reproduced the proposed acceptance wording inside quotation marks. The Defendant's position is that this was a quotation of the wording provided by the Plaintiff, rather than an unqualified communication of contractual assent.

As such, the Defendant did not breach any contract since there wasn’t any contract to breach

The Defendant therefore respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim. The question before this Court is therefore not simply what words were typed, but what those words objectively communicated. In this case, the quotation marks and surrounding circumstances create precisely the ambiguity that Section 4(2)(b) requires acceptance to avoid.
Thank you, Your Honour.

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T00:51:53-0400

We shall now proceed to witness questioning. As the District Court has no specific procedures for witness questioning, these proceedings shall use the Federal Court rules, listed below:

§ 5. Presentation of Witness Questions
5.1. Each party shall submit all initial questions for each witness in a single consolidated filing.
5.2. All objections to witness questions shall be filed in a single consolidated filing.
5.3. Objections under this section shall be due within forty-eight (48) hours following the deadline for submission of witness questions.
5.4. A witness shall not be presented with more than fifteen (15) questions on direct examination.
5.5. A witness shall not be presented with more than fifteen (15) questions on cross-examination.
5.6. The Court may increase the limits in §§ 5.4, 5.5, 5.7 upon application.
5.7. Follow-up questions are permitted; however, the total number of questions posed to a witness shall not exceed forty (40).
5.8. Objections to witness questions shall be contained within a single objection bracket.

§ 6. Witness Summonses and Testimony
6.1. Witnesses shall provide testimony in the manner and form directed by the Court.
6.2. Any objection to witness testimony shall be submitted within forty-eight (48) hours of the witness’s response.

§ 7. Cross-Examination
7.1. Each party may conduct cross-examination of any opposing witness.
7.2. Cross-examination questions shall be submitted within forty-eight (48) hours following the witness’s response to direct examination.
7.3. Cross-examination questions need not be consolidated.
7.4. Objections to cross-examination questions shall be submitted within twenty-four (24) hours.
7.5. Leading or conclusory questions are permitted, provided they are not inflammatory.
7.6. Cross-examination shall generally be limited to the subject matter of direct examination or the credibility of the witness.
7.7. Upon leave of the Court, a party may treat a witness as hostile and pose questions ordinarily reserved for direct examination.

The court notes that the following witnesses were included in the Plaintiff's complaint, and shall subsequently be called to the court:
- amah853
- SteelBirch6844
- riniki_
The Court will summon the witnesses called by the Plaintiff. After the witnesses appear, the Court will tell the Plaintiff when they may submit their questions for direct examination.

This is the order of events:
1. Witnesses are summoned
2. Plaintiff submits all questions for all witnesses
3. Defense shall have 48 hours to object to those questions
4. After those 48 hours have passed, or Defense Counsel states to the court that they have no objections, each witness will be asked to answer their questions in turn, each having 24 hours to do so.
5. After each witness responds, Defense Counsel shall have 48 hours to submit a list of Cross examination questions for that particular witness. The Plaintiff will have 24 hours to object to those questions, then the witnesses 24 hours to answer them.

Both parties are encouraged to ask clarifying questions about these procedures within this court thread to the Presiding Officer.

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T01:02:13-0400

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS SUMMONS

riniki_ (@Riniki) is hereby commanded to appear as a witness before the District Court in the case of amah853 v. SteelBirch6844 [2026] DCR 174.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in the witness being held in Contempt of Court.

So Ordered.

amah853 · 2026-09-28T07:19:58-0400

CreeperTD said:
We shall now proceed to witness questioning. As the District Court has no specific procedures for witness questioning, these proceedings shall use the Federal Court rules, listed below:

The court notes that the following witnesses were included in the Plaintiff's complaint, and shall subsequently be called to the court:
- amah853
- SteelBirch6844
- riniki_
The Court will summon the witnesses called by the Plaintiff. After the witnesses appear, the Court will tell the Plaintiff when they may submit their questions for direct examination.

This is the order of events:
1. Witnesses are summoned
2. Plaintiff submits all questions for all witnesses
3. Defense shall have 48 hours to object to those questions
4. After those 48 hours have passed, or Defense Counsel states to the court that they have no objections, each witness will be asked to answer their questions in turn, each having 24 hours to do so.
5. After each witness responds, Defense Counsel shall have 48 hours to submit a list of Cross examination questions for that particular witness. The Plaintiff will have 24 hours to object to those questions, then the witnesses 24 hours to answer them.

Both parties are encouraged to ask clarifying questions about these procedures within this court thread to the Presiding Officer.

Your Honor,

I have a procedural question regarding communications with summoned witnesses.

riniki_ regularly assists me with obtaining clients for my business, and I may therefore need to communicate with them while they are summoned as a witness in this case.

Would the Court please clarify whether I am permitted to communications with riniki_?

Signed,
amah853

amah853 · 2026-09-28T09:58:41-0400

CreeperTD said:
We shall now proceed to witness questioning. As the District Court has no specific procedures for witness questioning, these proceedings shall use the Federal Court rules, listed below:

The court notes that the following witnesses were included in the Plaintiff's complaint, and shall subsequently be called to the court:
- amah853
- SteelBirch6844
- riniki_
The Court will summon the witnesses called by the Plaintiff. After the witnesses appear, the Court will tell the Plaintiff when they may submit their questions for direct examination.

This is the order of events:
1. Witnesses are summoned
2. Plaintiff submits all questions for all witnesses
3. Defense shall have 48 hours to object to those questions
4. After those 48 hours have passed, or Defense Counsel states to the court that they have no objections, each witness will be asked to answer their questions in turn, each having 24 hours to do so.
5. After each witness responds, Defense Counsel shall have 48 hours to submit a list of Cross examination questions for that particular witness. The Plaintiff will have 24 hours to object to those questions, then the witnesses 24 hours to answer them.

Both parties are encouraged to ask clarifying questions about these procedures within this court thread to the Presiding Officer.

Motion

Pursuant to Section 7.7 of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Plaintiff requests leave to treat .SteelBirch6844 as a hostile witness for purposes of direct examination.

.SteelBirch6844 is the Defendant in this action and maintains a position directly adverse to the Plaintiff concerning the principal disputed issue in this case: whether the Defendant’s communication constituted acceptance of the Agreement.

Because the Defendant is an adverse party whose testimony is expected to contradict the Plaintiff’s position on that issue, the Plaintiff requests permission to pose questions ordinarily reserved for cross-examination, including leading questions, as authorized by 7.7.

Signed,
amah853
Plaintiff

Notice to the court: this message has been modified to include motion formatting

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T10:18:51-0400

amah853 said:
Motion

Pursuant to Section 7.7 of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Plaintiff requests leave to treat .SteelBirch6844 as a hostile witness for purposes of direct examination.

.SteelBirch6844 is the Defendant in this action and maintains a position directly adverse to the Plaintiff concerning the principal disputed issue in this case: whether the Defendant’s communication constituted acceptance of the Agreement.

Because the Defendant is an adverse party whose testimony is expected to contradict the Plaintiff’s position on that issue, the Plaintiff requests permission to pose questions ordinarily reserved for cross-examination, including leading questions, as authorized by 7.7.

Signed,
amah853
Plaintiff

Notice to the court: this message has been modified to include motion formatting

Granted.

amah853 said:
Your Honor,

I have a procedural question regarding communications with summoned witnesses.

riniki_ regularly assists me with obtaining clients for my business, and I may therefore need to communicate with them while they are summoned as a witness in this case.

Would the Court please clarify whether I am permitted to communications with riniki_?

Signed,
amah853

The Court notes only that Criminal Code Act Part III Section 3(b) has this definition for Obstruction of Justice: “willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer.”

amah853 · 2026-09-28T11:21:56-0400

CreeperTD said:
We shall now proceed to witness questioning. As the District Court has no specific procedures for witness questioning, these proceedings shall use the Federal Court rules, listed below:

The court notes that the following witnesses were included in the Plaintiff's complaint, and shall subsequently be called to the court:
- amah853
- SteelBirch6844
- riniki_
The Court will summon the witnesses called by the Plaintiff. After the witnesses appear, the Court will tell the Plaintiff when they may submit their questions for direct examination.

This is the order of events:
1. Witnesses are summoned
2. Plaintiff submits all questions for all witnesses
3. Defense shall have 48 hours to object to those questions
4. After those 48 hours have passed, or Defense Counsel states to the court that they have no objections, each witness will be asked to answer their questions in turn, each having 24 hours to do so.
5. After each witness responds, Defense Counsel shall have 48 hours to submit a list of Cross examination questions for that particular witness. The Plaintiff will have 24 hours to object to those questions, then the witnesses 24 hours to answer them.

Both parties are encouraged to ask clarifying questions about these procedures within this court thread to the Presiding Officer.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS QUESTIONS

Pursuant to Section 5.1 of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Plaintiff submits the following initial questions for the witnesses called in this matter.

I. QUESTIONS FOR amah853

1. Please describe how your discussions with .SteelBirch6844 regarding the bot began.

2. What features and package options were discussed during those negotiations?

3. What agreement did you ultimately reach regarding the initial package and its price?

4. What did you do after those negotiations to put the parties' agreement into writing?

5. How did the written Agreement provide for digital acceptance?

6. What did you tell .SteelBirch6844 immediately before they sent the message containing the acceptance language?

7. What message did .SteelBirch6844 send after you explained how they could accept the Agreement?

8. Based on the message and the conversation immediately surrounding it, how did you understand SteelBirch6844’s response at the time?

9. What did .SteelBirch6844 say or ask immediately after sending that message?

10. Did .SteelBirch6844 state at that time that the message was merely an example, quotation, draft, or rejection of the Agreement?

11. What work had you already completed on the bot at that point?

12. When did you later request payment of the DC$1,000 Initial Fee?

13. How did .SteelBirch6844 respond when payment was requested?

14. When did .SteelBirch6844 first claim that the quotation marks meant they had not accepted the Agreement?

15. At any point, did you expressly agree to waive, cancel, or extinguish the DC$1,000 Initial Fee?

II. QUESTIONS FOR .SteelBirch6844 - Hostile Witness

The Court has granted the Plaintiff leave under Section 7.7 to treat .SteelBirch6844 as a hostile witness.

1. You negotiated with the Plaintiff regarding the development of a Discord bot, correct?

2. You received the written Agreement from the Plaintiff before sending the message at issue, correct?

3. The Agreement contained a method by which you could electronically accept it, correct?

4. Immediately before you sent the message at issue, the Plaintiff told you that you could copy the acceptance message and change the username to your own, correct?

5. After receiving that instruction, you sent the statement, “I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement,” correct?

6. You used your own username in that statement, correct?

7. You did not state in that message that you rejected the Agreement, correct?

8. You did not state in that message that you were merely providing an example, draft, or quotation for demonstration purposes, correct?

9. Immediately after sending that message, you continued discussing the Agreement with the Plaintiff, correct?

10. You asked whether the payment was a one-time payment, correct?

11. You also asked whether the source code would be sold or provided, correct?

12. During that immediate discussion, you did not tell the Plaintiff that your previous message was not intended as acceptance, correct?

13. It was only after the Plaintiff later requested payment that you relied on the quotation marks to argue that you had not accepted the Agreement, correct?

14. During the later dispute, you stated, “It was my fault for not clarifying,” correct?

15. When you stated that it was your fault for not clarifying, what specifically were you referring to?

III. QUESTIONS FOR riniki_

1. Were you involved in the discussions between the Plaintiff and .SteelBirch6844 regarding the bot project?

2. What package and pricing arrangement did you personally discuss with SteelBirch6844 during the negotiations?

3. Were you aware that .SteelBirch6844 intended to begin with a smaller package and potentially expand later?

4. Were you aware that a written Agreement was prepared between the Plaintiff and .SteelBirch6844?

5. What, if anything, did you personally observe SteelBirch6844 say or do after the Agreement was sent that related to whether they had agreed to the arrangement?

6. Were you present for, or aware of, the later dispute concerning whether .SteelBirch6844 had accepted the Agreement?

7. During that later discussion, did .SteelBirch6844 state, “It was my fault for not clarifying”?

8. After SteelBirch6844 stated, ‘It was my fault for not clarifying,’ did they explain what they had failed to clarify? If so, what did they say?

9. Did .SteelBirch6844 explain that their concern related to paying for hosting while the bot was not being used?

10. When you stated that .SteelBirch6844 would be placed on a wait-list, what did you mean by that?

11. Did you intend that statement to cancel or waive .SteelBirch6844's DC$1,000 payment obligation?

12. Did the Plaintiff ever tell you that they agreed to waive or cancel the DC$1,000 Initial Fee?

13. Did amah853 ever authorize you to waive, cancel, or modify the DC$1,000 Initial Fee on their behalf?

14. Was the wait-list discussion intended to concern hosting or deployment timing rather than cancellation of the Agreement itself?

15. To your knowledge, before the later payment dispute, did .SteelBirch6844 ever state that the acceptance message had only been a quotation and was not intended as agreement?

Edited to bold headings between witnesses.

S_Starlight · 2026-09-28T19:22:07-0400

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Call FOR CONCLUSION

The defence wishes to object to the following question on Call got conclusion

8. Based on the message and the conversation immediately surrounding it, how did you understand SteelBirch6844’s response at the time?

This question ask for an opinion not a fact

amah853 · 2026-09-28T19:45:12-0400

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Call FOR CONCLUSION

The defence wishes to object to the following question on Call got conclusion

8. Based on the message and the conversation immediately surrounding it, how did you understand SteelBirch6844’s response at the time?

This question ask for an opinion not a fact

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff does not oppose the Defence’s objection and withdraws Question 8 from the Plaintiff’s witness questions.

S_Starlight · 2026-09-28T21:15:11-0400

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTION

The defence object to this question as a leading question

Did .SteelBirch6844 state at that time that the message was merely an example, quotation, draft, or rejection of the Agreement?

This Involves questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm.

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T21:18:58-0400

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTION

The defence object to this question as a leading question

Did .SteelBirch6844 state at that time that the message was merely an example, quotation, draft, or rejection of the Agreement?

This Involves questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm.

OVERRULED. The Court has authorized the Plaintiff to treat Defendant .SteelBirch6844 as a hostile witness, which allows them to ask leading questions to this particular witness.

S_Starlight · 2026-09-28T21:20:57-0400

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUME NOT IN EVIDENCE

The defence object to this question as it is not in evidence

It was only after the Plaintiff later requested payment that you relied on the quotation marks to argue that you had not accepted the Agreement, correct?

[/CENTER]

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T21:22:44-0400

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUME NOT IN EVIDENCE

The defence object to this question as it is not in evidence

It was only after the Plaintiff later requested payment that you relied on the quotation marks to argue that you had not accepted the Agreement, correct?

[/CENTER]

The court is not aware of an objection named "Assume not in Evidence." If you continue to post filings that clearly lack any proofreading you will be found in contempt, I am tired of deciphering them. This filing is struck.

S_Starlight · 2026-09-28T21:23:45-0400

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

The defence object to this question as a rather opinion question and not factual question

11. Did you intend that statement to cancel or waive .SteelBirch6844's DC$1,000 payment obligation?

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T21:24:46-0400

The court asks for the Defense to, from this point forward, consolidate all objections to the Plaintiff's questions into one single post.

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T21:26:07-0400

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

The defence object to this question as a rather opinion question and not factual question

11. Did you intend that statement to cancel or waive .SteelBirch6844's DC$1,000 payment obligation?

Objection OVERRULED. Intent is not an opinion, it is a fact, and for a case about breach of contract, intent is a vital part of the case. Any questions about intent may stand unless Defense Counsel has a compelling reason to argue otherwise.

S_Starlight · 2026-09-28T21:42:11-0400

Motion

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

The defence wishes for your honor to reconsider

CreeperTD said:
Objection OVERRULED. Intent is not an opinion, it is a fact, and for a case about breach of contract, intent is a vital part of the case. Any questions about intent may stand unless Defense Counsel has a compelling reason to argue otherwise.

While the Defense recognizes that intent can be a factual issue when dealing with contract law issues, the problem lies in who the intent pertains to. Riniki_ has not been named as a party in the Agreement, and the issue is not about Riniki_'s own obligations under the contract.

The problem here requires that Riniki_ give his understanding of the legal implications of the wait list statement in relation to the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The legal cancellation, waiver, or extinguishment of an alleged contractual obligation is something that should ultimately be decided by the Court.

In addition, the phrases "cancel," "waive," and "payment obligation" reflect the legal consequences of the statement and do not just inquire about observation or communication.

CreeperTD · 2026-09-28T21:59:26-0400

S_Starlight said:
Motion

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

The defence wishes for your honor to reconsider

While the Defense recognizes that intent can be a factual issue when dealing with contract law issues, the problem lies in who the intent pertains to. Riniki_ has not been named as a party in the Agreement, and the issue is not about Riniki_'s own obligations under the contract.

The problem here requires that Riniki_ give his understanding of the legal implications of the wait list statement in relation to the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The legal cancellation, waiver, or extinguishment of an alleged contractual obligation is something that should ultimately be decided by the Court.

In addition, the phrases "cancel," "waive," and "payment obligation" reflect the legal consequences of the statement and do not just inquire about observation or communication.

Motion DENIED. This is not the original argument made by Defense Counsel for its dismissal, it's an entirely seperate objection regarding whether or not the question is asking for a legal opinion.

S_Starlight · 2026-09-29T00:54:12-0400

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - LEADING/COMPOUND QUESTION

The defence wishes to object to the following question for leading

15. At any point, did you expressly agree to waive, cancel, or extinguish the DC$1,000 Initial Fee? (amah853)

Reason: The question is leading as it assumes the fact that the Plaintiff did not waive, cancel or extinguish the payment obligation and solicits the witness to agree.

9. Did .SteelBirch6844 explain that their concern related to paying for hosting while the bot was not being used? (riniki_)

Reason: The question is leading in that it states the subject matter of the alleged concern and asks the witness to confirm the description

12. Did the Plaintiff ever tell you that they agreed to waive or cancel the DC$1,000 Initial Fee? (rinki_)

Reasoning: The question is leading because it assumes a certain answer, rather than letting the witness describe in her own words what was said.

13. Did amah853 ever authorize you to waive, cancel, or modify the DC$1,000 Initial Fee on their behalf? (rinki_)

Reasoning: The question is leading in that it states the proposition that the witness was not authorized and then asks the witness to agree.

14. Was the wait-list discussion intended to concern hosting or deployment timing rather than cancellation of the Agreement itself? (rinki_)

Reasoning: The question is leading because it suggests two potential explanations of the wait list discussion and asks the witness to choose or confirm the plaintiff’s explanation.

15. To your knowledge, before the later payment dispute, did .SteelBirch6844 ever state that the acceptance message had only been a quotation and was not intended as agreement? (riniki_)

Reasoning: The question is leading because it supplies the specific proposition that SteelBirch6844 never characterized the message as a quotation and asks the witness to confirm whether that proposition is true.

The defence would also like to object the following question for compound question.

5. What, if anything, did you personally observe SteelBirch6844 say or do after the Agreement was sent that related to whether they had agreed to the arrangement? (Riniki_)

Reasoning: The question requires the witness to give evidence on two different issues; what was said by SteelBirch6844, and what was done by SteelBirch6844, in addition to whether these events were related to the acceptance of the agreement.

6. Were you present for, or aware of, the later dispute concerning whether .SteelBirch6844 had accepted the Agreement? (riniki_)

Reasoning: The question is compound because being personally present at an event and being aware of an event are two different bases of knowledge.

CreeperTD · 2026-09-29T01:56:11-0400

S_Starlight said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - LEADING/COMPOUND QUESTION

The defence wishes to object to the following question for leading

15. At any point, did you expressly agree to waive, cancel, or extinguish the DC$1,000 Initial Fee?

Reason: The question is leading as it assumes the fact that the Plaintiff did not waive, cancel or extinguish the payment obligation and solicits the witness to agree.

9. Did .SteelBirch6844 explain that their concern related to paying for hosting while the bot was not being used?

Reason: The question is leading in that it states the subject matter of the alleged concern and asks the witness to confirm the description

12. Did the Plaintiff ever tell you that they agreed to waive or cancel the DC$1,000 Initial Fee?

Reasoning: The question is leading because it assumes a certain answer, rather than letting the witness describe in her own words what was said.

13. Did amah853 ever authorize you to waive, cancel, or modify the DC$1,000 Initial Fee on their behalf?

Reasoning: The question is leading in that it states the proposition that the witness was not authorized and then asks the witness to agree.

14. Was the wait-list discussion intended to concern hosting or deployment timing rather than cancellation of the Agreement itself?

Reasoning: The question is leading because it suggests two potential explanations of the wait list discussion and asks the witness to choose or confirm the plaintiff’s explanation.

15. To your knowledge, before the later payment dispute, did .SteelBirch6844 ever state that the acceptance message had only been a quotation and was not intended as agreement?

Reasoning: The question is leading because it supplies the specific proposition that SteelBirch6844 never characterized the message as a quotation and asks the witness to confirm whether that proposition is true.

The defence would also like to object the following question for compound question.

What, if anything, did you personally observe SteelBirch6844 say or do after the Agreement was sent that related to whether they had agreed to the arrangement?

Reasoning: The question requires the witness to give evidence on two different issues; what was said by SteelBirch6844, and what was done by SteelBirch6844, in addition to whether these events were related to the acceptance of the agreement.

6. Were you present for, or aware of, the later dispute concerning whether .SteelBirch6844 had accepted the Agreement?

Reasoning: The question is compound because being personally present at an event and being aware of an event are two different bases of knowledge.

Please amend this to specify which witness each question being objected to is to be directed towards. State in this thread once you have done so.

S_Starlight · 2026-09-29T02:40:44-0400

CreeperTD said:
Please amend this to specify which witness each question being objected to is to be directed towards. State in this thread once you have done so.

The defence has amended to the requirement of the court your honor.

Lawsuit: In Session amah853 v. SteelBirch6844 [2026] DCR 174

Citizen

Case Filing

Attachments

Citizen

Citizen

Case Filing

Citizen

Citizen

Writ of Summons

Citizen

Court Order

SGT Starlight

Attachments

Citizen

Citizen

SGT Starlight

Objection

SGT Starlight

Objection

Citizen

Objection

SGT Starlight

Objection

SGT Starlight

Objection

SGT Starlight

Attachments

SGT Starlight

Answer to Complaint

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Citizen

Answer to Complaint

SGT Starlight

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint

Citizen

Answer to Complaint

SGT Starlight

Answer to Complaint

Citizen

Answer to Complaint

SGT Starlight

Evidence

Citizen

SGT Starlight

Motion

Citizen

Evidence

Citizen

SGT Starlight

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Evidence

SGT Starlight

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

SGT Starlight

Motion

SGT Starlight

Citizen

Motion

SGT Starlight

Motion

SGT Starlight

Motion

SGT Starlight

Motion

Citizen

Motion