Appeal: Accepted KattoDE v. JuliaMC_ [2026] FCR 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Julia_

Julia_

Frmr. Dep. Speaker
Representative
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Oakridge Resident
Contemptable Lawmaker Statesman
JuliaMC_
JuliaMC_
Representative
Joined
Mar 14, 2025
Messages
290


Username: JuliaMC_

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 31

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - KattoDE v. JuliaMC_ [2026] DCR 31

Basis for Appeal: Part II, Section 7(2)(d) of the Judicial Standards Act states "Any rules for the combat, including but not limited to permitted weapons, armour, location, and victory conditions, must be agreed upon by both parties prior to the fight." Part II, Section 7(4)(a) reiterates this by stating "Any rules, victory conditions, and procedures must be agreed upon by both parties and documented prior to the commencement."

In [2026] DCR 31, Plaintiff and Defendant, both being of a right mind and a right body respectively, agreed upon the following rules and conditions:
(1) Both sides appoint a second, each.
(i) A second is a trusted representative that will oversee the duel and negotiate with the other side.
(2) A doctor shall be on site. They shall turn around at the onset of the duel to have deniability.
(3) The duel shall take place right before dawn (5am in-game time) in Weehawken, Aventura.
(4) Both sides shall use a Flintlock in the duel.
(5) Count to ten paces, then fire one bullet.
(6) If either side is satisfied after the first shot, the duel shall be finished.
(i) This can be a miss, hit or death of the opponent.
(7) No armour other than cosmetic hats may be worn during the duel.
(8) The rules provided by the song "Ten Duel Commandments" from Hamilton: An American Musical shall be followed in the procedure of the duel.
Click to expand...

On or around the 30th of April, Plaintiff and Defendant conducted a Trial-by-Combat with the witness present. The Trial-by-Combat breached the agreed upon rule and conditions. While being aware of these breaches, the witness certified the results of the Trial-by-Combat to the Court by informing the Court of Plaintiff's victory in said Trial-by-Combat.

The Trial-by-Combat breached the following clauses in the agreed upon rules and conditions:
- Section 3 of the Rules and Conditions
Section 3 states "The duel shall take place right before dawn (5am in-game time) in Weehawken, Aventura." The Trial-by-Combat did not take place on 5 AM in-game time. Rather, it took place on or around 10 AM in-game time.

- Section 7 of the Rules and Conditions
Section 7 states "No armour other than cosmetic hats may be worn during the duel." Plaintiff was wearing a chestplace during the Trial-by-Combat in contravention to the rules and conditions.

- Section 8 of the Rules and Conditions
Section 8 states 'The rules provided by the song "Ten Duel Commandments" from Hamilton: An American Musical shall be followed in the procedure of the duel.'
The rules provided by the song in question are:
1. The challenge: demand satisfaction. If they apologize, no need for further action.
2. If they don't, grab a friend, that's your second. Your Lieutenant, when there's reckoning to be reckoned
3. Have your seconds meet face to face. Negotiate a peace or negotiate a time and place.
4. If they don't reach a peace, that's alright. Time to get some pistols and a doctor on site. You pay him in advance, you treat him with civility. You have him turn around, so he can have deniability.
5. Duel before the sun is in the sky. Pick a place to die where it's high and dry.
6. Leave a note for your next of kin. Tell 'em where you been. Pray that Hell or Heaven lets you in.
7. Confess your sins. Ready for the moment of adrenaline when you finally face your opponent.
8. Your last chance to negotiate. Send in your seconds. See if they can set the record straight.
Plaintiff violated the following rules:
Rule 2: Plaintiff did not find a lieutenant to assist in the duel.
Rule 3: The (non-existent) second of Plaintiff did not attempt to meet face to face with Defendant's. Neither did they negotiate a peace or a time and place.
Rule 4: Plaintiff did not hire or pay a doctor and neither did he treat one with civility.
Rule 5: Plaintiff did not duel before the sun was in the sky. The Trial-by-Combat took place on or around 10 AM in-game time.
Rule 8: Plaintiff did not send in his (non-existent) second to negotiate.

When Defendant requested the Honourable Judge Multiman155 to take action against the illegitimate Trial-by-Combat, he denied Defendant's request, told Defendant to bring up any defects in an appeal, and issued a verdict in favour of Plaintiff.

Supporting Evidence: ATTACHED
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,
Appellant moves for the Court to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from seizing any of my assets to pay for the damages in [2026] DCR 31 for the duration of this appeal.

The Department of Homeland Security has threatened to begin seizure if I fail to pay damages and seizure of my assets would cause large financial strain.

Respectfully submitted,
Julia V. Tempest.

 
Julia_ said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,
Appellant moves for the Court to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from seizing any of my assets to pay for the damages in [2026] DCR 31 for the duration of this appeal.

The Department of Homeland Security has threatened to begin seizure if I fail to pay damages and seizure of my assets would cause large financial strain.

Respectfully submitted,
Julia V. Tempest.

Click to expand...

Do you have $13,000 to post as a security against the judgment?
 
Your Honour,

I ask leave of this court to provide the $13,000 to post as security on behalf of the Appellant.
I have sufficient funds to be fined.
1775151539109.png
 
ToadKing said:
Your Honour,

I ask leave of this court to provide the $13,000 to post as security on behalf of the Appellant.
I have sufficient funds to be fined.
View attachment 78279
Click to expand...

At your own risk. The Court doesn't order you to post this security, but if you do so voluntarily and proof is presented, the Court will order DHS to halt enforcement.
 
ToadKing said:
Your Honour,

I freely and voluntarily post security on behalf of the Appellant and request that the DHS halt enforcement without delay.
Click to expand...

The Federal Court halts the enforcement of the verdict pending a review of the appeal.
 

Writ of Summons


@Katto is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of KattoDe v. Juliamc [2026] FCR 27

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

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

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

 
Your Honour, While I affirm that some previously agreed upon rules have not been followed word by word, I deny that following these frankly quite ridiculous rules to the very word would have led to any other outcome in this duel. Specifically broken down:
- Section 3 of the Rules and Conditions​
Section 3 states "The duel shall take place right before dawn (5am in-game time) in Weehawken, Aventura." The Trial-by-Combat did not take place on 5 AM in-game time. Rather, it took place on or around 10 AM in-game time.​
I affirm this, but a different in-game time would not have changed the outcome of the trial by combat. This, too, was a roleplay element taken from HAMILTON: An American Musical.
- Section 7 of the Rules and Conditions​
Section 7 states "No armour other than cosmetic hats may be worn during the duel." Plaintiff was wearing a chestplace during the Trial-by-Combat in contravention to the rules and conditions.​
I affirm this, however gun mechanics fully breech armour. Armour does not protect you from bullets, so it would not have made a difference in this duel. When writing this rule, i was under the impression that armour does in fact mitigate bullet damage, but i was quickly proven false before the duel.
- Section 8 of the Rules and Conditions​
Section 8 states 'The rules provided by the song "Ten Duel Commandments" from Hamilton: An American Musical shall be followed in the procedure of the duel.'​
I have broken these allegations down, below.
Rule 2: Plaintiff did not find a lieutenant to assist in the duel.​
I deny this. I did find a second. This claim is incorrect.
Rule 3: The (non-existent) second of Plaintiff did not attempt to meet face to face with Defendant's. Neither did they negotiate a peace or a time and place.​
I affirm this, but this would not have changed the outcome of the duel. We had already agreed upon a time and place.
Rule 4: Plaintiff did not hire or pay a doctor and neither did he treat one with civility.​
I affirm this, but a doctor would not have made any difference and would have been purely a roleplay element, not any form of influence to the trial by combat.
Rule 5: Plaintiff did not duel before the sun was in the sky. The Trial-by-Combat took place on or around 10 AM in-game time.​
- Redundant, see Section 3 above -
Rule 8: Plaintiff did not send in his (non-existent) second to negotiate.​
I deny not having had a second, but i affirm not having sent them to negotiate. Im really not sure what would have been negotiated, as the time, place and rules had already been agreed upon.

Thank you.
 
Muggy21 said:
@Katto Seeing no response from Appellant, you have 72 Hours to respond in opposition with your brief.
Click to expand...
I'd like to apologise for failing to respond. I did not get pinged by the forums.

Muggy21 said:
@Julia_ You have 72 Hours to offer a brief in reponse.
Click to expand...
I do not believe it is necessary for me to file a brief in response, I have already laid out my arguments in full.
 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Decision on Appeal - KattoDE v. JuliaMC_ [2026] FCR 27


Summary of Appeal

Appellant JuliaMC_ appeals the verdict of [2026] DCR 31, in which the District Court found in favour of Plaintiff KattoDE following a Trial-by-Combat. Appellant contends the combat was conducted in material breach of the agreed rules and conditions. The Court has reviewed the appeal filing, the attached evidence, and Appellee's brief in opposition.


Opinion of the Court

A trial-by-combat not witnessed by a judicial officer must be presumed to be witnessed by a neutral third-party; The certifying witness is presumed to be a neutral third party with a reasonable capacity to observe and fairly report the outcome of the combat. However, deference is not immunity from review. Where deficiencies are timely raised, the Court retains the obligation to examine whether the certified result rests on a procedurally sound foundation before giving it legal effect. That is the function of this appeal, and the certification does not foreclose it.


The results of the trial-by-combat in the lower Court reached that Court through witness certification, a mechanism confirmed as central to the process in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] DCR 1. Where deficiencies in the conduct of the combat are properly raised and adjudicated, the Court retains the authority and the obligation to examine whether the certified result rests on a procedurally sound foundation before giving it legal effect. That is precisely the function of this appeal. The District Court, rather than examining those deficiencies when Appellant raised them contemporaneously, directed Appellant to appeal and proceeded to verdict. The deficiencies were therefore never reviewed prior to the certification being acted upon, which is the error this Court corrects today.

This holding respects the presumptive validity of the certification while grounding the Court's intervention in the narrower and more defensible principle that unreviewed, timely-raised objections cannot be silenced by an otherwise valid certification. It also implicitly places some responsibility on the District Court for failing to adjudicate the deficiencies before acting on the result, without going as far as impugning the witness directly.


Order of the Court

For the foregoing reasons, the verdict of the District Court is vacated, insofar as the District Court must review the deficiencies of the trial-by-combat raised as timely and adjudicate them fully. This Court will not adjudicate the validity of the current trial-by-combat as such a determination must be made by the trial court, not this Court on review.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top