Lawsuit: In Session 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52

3mkTalal

3mkTalal

Citizen
Supporter
3mkTalal
3mkTalal
Attorney
Joined
May 25, 2026
Messages
8

Case Filing







IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

3mkTalal
Plaintiff

v.

legoear
Defendant

COMPLAINT
​





The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM in-game time, the Defendant, legoear, entered the Plaintiff’s apartment without permission and killed the Plaintiff inside the apartment. The incident occurred inside Eapt-2 (Plot C231) and did not occur in the wilderness.

The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages arising from Murder under the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES

1. 3mkTalal, Plaintiff.
2. legoear, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM in-game time, the Plaintiff was inside his own apartment, Eapt-2 (Plot C231).
2. The Defendant, legoear, entered the Plaintiff’s apartment without the Plaintiff’s permission.
3. The Defendant attacked and killed the Plaintiff inside the apartment.
4. The incident did not occur in the wilderness.
5. The Plaintiff did not consent to being attacked, killed, or having the Defendant enter his apartment.
6. The Plaintiff has screenshots showing the Defendant inside the apartment, the Plaintiff’s death screen, and the location as Apt-2.
7. The killing caused the Plaintiff disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of his apartment.
8. The Defendant’s conduct was especially serious because the Plaintiff was killed inside his own private apartment rather than in a public area or wilderness.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM MURDER UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT

1. The Plaintiff brings this claim for civil damages arising from Murder under the Criminal Code Act.

2. Relevant Law: Criminal Code Act, Murder:

“A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) unlawfully kills another player.”
Click to expand...

3. The Defendant’s conduct satisfies this definition because the Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff.

4. The killing occurred inside the Plaintiff’s apartment and did not occur in the wilderness.

5. The Plaintiff is not asking this Court to criminally punish the Defendant. The Plaintiff is asking for civil damages based on the Defendant’s criminal conduct toward the Plaintiff.

CLAIM II: UNLAWFUL KILLING UNDER THE CRIMINAL TERMINOLOGY ACT

6. Relevant Law: Criminal Terminology Act, Unlawful Killing:

“For purposes of Part IV of the Criminal Code Act, ‘unlawful killing’ means causing the death of another player when:
(a) the killed player did not have /police consent enabled at the time of death; and
(b) the killing was not justified under any of the following:
(i) lawful self-defence as defined in Section 6(11) of Part I of the Criminal Code Act;
(ii) defence of property under Castle Law as defined in Section 6(10) of Part I of the Criminal Code Act; or”
Click to expand...

7. The Plaintiff did not have /police consent enabled.

8. The Defendant’s killing was not justified by lawful self-defense because the Plaintiff did not attack or threaten the Defendant first.

9. The Defendant’s killing was not justified by Castle Law or defense of property because the incident occurred inside the Plaintiff’s own apartment, not the Defendant’s property.

CLAIM III: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

10. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 1 - Applicability:

“The definitions and rules for damages in this Part apply to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct.”
Click to expand...

11. The Plaintiff may therefore seek civil damages arising from the Defendant’s Murder of the Plaintiff.

CLAIM IV: NOMINAL DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

12. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages.

13. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Nominal Damages:

“Nominal damages are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages.”
Click to expand...

14. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Award:

“Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500.”
Click to expand...

15. The Plaintiff has established a legal cause of action because the Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff.

16. Nominal damages are appropriate to recognize the legal harm caused by the Defendant’s unlawful killing of the Plaintiff.

CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR DISRUPTION, LOST TIME, AND LOSS OF ENJOYMENT

17. The Plaintiff suffered non-pecuniary harm, including disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of his apartment.

18. The Plaintiff does not plead “emotional damages” as a standalone category. Instead, the Plaintiff pleads these harms as civil harm caused by the Defendant’s conduct and as support for the damages requested.

19. The Defendant’s conduct interrupted the Plaintiff’s lawful gameplay and forced the Plaintiff to deal with the consequences of being killed inside his own apartment.

CLAIM VI: PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

20. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

21. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Punitive Damages:

“Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.”
Click to expand...

22. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Award:

“Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.”
Click to expand...

23. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Outrageous Conduct:

“Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.”
Click to expand...

24. The Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because the Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s apartment without permission and killed the Plaintiff inside that private apartment.

25. Killing another player inside their own apartment demonstrates reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights, interests, and safety.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant:

1. $1,000 in nominal damages for the Defendant’s unlawful killing of the Plaintiff.
2. $3,000 in consequential damages for disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of his apartment.
3. $500 in punitive damages for the Defendant’s outrageous conduct and reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and safety.
4. Total damages of $4,500.
5. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

1779762602799.png
1779762635715.png
1779762668215.png
1779762698175.png
1779762730656.png

VI. WITNESSES

1. 3mkTalal
Expected testimony: The Plaintiff may testify that he was inside his own apartment, that the Defendant entered without permission, that the Defendant killed him, and that the incident caused disruption, lost time, fear, distress, loss of enjoyment, and interference with the Plaintiff’s lawful use of the apartment.

VII. APPENDIX

1. The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as unlawfully killing another player.
2. The Criminal Terminology Act defines unlawful killing for purposes of the Criminal Code Act.
3. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows civil damages arising from criminal conduct.
4. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows nominal damages where a legal cause of action is established even without substantial loss.
5. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows punitive damages where the Defendant’s conduct is outrageous, including reckless disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.
6. The Court template requires parties, facts, claims for relief, prayer for relief, evidence, witnesses if applicable, and the perjury statement.

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 25th day of May 2026

 

Writ of Summons


@legoear is ordered to appear before the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of 3mkTalal v legoear [2026] DCR 52

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.

 
I am present and acknowledge the civil action being taken against me.
 
Last edited:
Anthony_Org said:
Your honor, I am representing Legoear in this matter.

View attachment 83897
Click to expand...
The Court acknowledges! The deadline remains the same. Please let the Court know if you need additional time to familiarize yourself with the case.
 

Motion


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

The Defence seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.14 (Factual Error). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. In support thereof, the Defence respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff seeks $3,500 in consequential and punitive damages yet has submitted no evidence of pecuniary loss. No items lost, no income lost, no property damage. Assertions without evidentiary support cannot sustain a claim for relief under Rule 5.5.

The Plaintiff's witness list compounds this failure. The sole listed witness is 3mkTalal, who is simultaneously the Plaintiff and the counsel. All consequential damages rest entirely on self-serving, uncorroborated testimony from a single person wearing three hats. More tellingly, the Complaint does not state what that testimony will be, it states only what it is "expected" to be. A plaintiff recounting events they personally experienced should know their own testimony with certainty. Speculative, prospective testimony is not verifiable evidence.

The punitive damages claim fails for the same reasons and one additional one. Outrageous conduct under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3, requires wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights of others. The Plaintiff has submitted no evidence of premeditation, prior threats, or any aggravating factor beyond the killing itself. A single killing without more cannot satisfy that elevated threshold.

Finally, the central factual premise, that this occurred inside a purely private residential apartment, is directly contradicted by megaprogam3r v. Osirisx88 [2026] DCR 57, a filing on this very docket arising from the same location, Plot C231 Eapt-2, on the same date. That complaint describes the premises as the office of 3MK & Associates, under renovation, with a worker present. The Plaintiff is the attorney of record for 3MK & Associates. This is a material factual error under Rule 5.14.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 and 5.14. Thank you.

 
Anthony_Org said:

Motion


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

The Defence seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.14 (Factual Error). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. In support thereof, the Defence respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff seeks $3,500 in consequential and punitive damages yet has submitted no evidence of pecuniary loss. No items lost, no income lost, no property damage. Assertions without evidentiary support cannot sustain a claim for relief under Rule 5.5.

The Plaintiff's witness list compounds this failure. The sole listed witness is 3mkTalal, who is simultaneously the Plaintiff and the counsel. All consequential damages rest entirely on self-serving, uncorroborated testimony from a single person wearing three hats. More tellingly, the Complaint does not state what that testimony will be, it states only what it is "expected" to be. A plaintiff recounting events they personally experienced should know their own testimony with certainty. Speculative, prospective testimony is not verifiable evidence.

The punitive damages claim fails for the same reasons and one additional one. Outrageous conduct under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3, requires wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights of others. The Plaintiff has submitted no evidence of premeditation, prior threats, or any aggravating factor beyond the killing itself. A single killing without more cannot satisfy that elevated threshold.

Finally, the central factual premise, that this occurred inside a purely private residential apartment, is directly contradicted by megaprogam3r v. Osirisx88 [2026] DCR 57, a filing on this very docket arising from the same location, Plot C231 Eapt-2, on the same date. That complaint describes the premises as the office of 3MK & Associates, under renovation, with a worker present. The Plaintiff is the attorney of record for 3MK & Associates. This is a material factual error under Rule 5.14.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 and 5.14. Thank you.

Click to expand...
Additionally, as this is a dispositive motion; the Plaintiff (cc. @3mkTalal) has 24 hours to respond if they so choose.
 

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENCE MOTION TO DISMISS


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defence's Motion to Dismiss and asks that it be denied in full.


I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD


A Motion to Dismiss is not a trial on the merits. It does not weigh evidence or resolve credibility. Those are matters for witness testimony and the verdict. Under Rule 5.1, a Motion to Dismiss must specify the discovery rule relied upon and apply it using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions.


To the extent the Defence argues that the Plaintiff's testimony is "self-serving" or that there was no premeditation, those arguments are tied to no rule under Section 5. They are merits arguments about weight, not grounds for dismissal, and should be disregarded. This Court has previously declined to grant a Motion to Dismiss that failed to properly apply its cited rule (Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59).


II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A CLAIM AND SUBMITTED EVIDENCE (RULE 5.5)


Rule 5.5 permits dismissal only for failure to state a claim or where a claim has insufficient evidence to support it. Neither applies.


The Plaintiff stated a claim for civil damages arising from Murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another player as defined in Section 10 of the Criminal Terminology Act, and civil damages for such conduct are permitted under the Redmont Civil Code Act and the civil-damages principles of the Criminal Code Act. The Plaintiff also submitted evidence: exhibits P-001 through P-005, uploaded directly to the forums in compliance with Rule 4.6, together with first-hand witness testimony. Those exhibits establish that the Plaintiff died, that the Defendant was present inside Eapt-2, that the location was Plot C231, and that the incident occurred inside controlled premises rather than the wilderness.


That is evidence. A dispute over its weight is not an absence of evidence, and Rule 5.5 is not satisfied where exhibits and testimony exist.


III. THE DAMAGES ARGUMENTS DO NOT DEFEAT THE CLAIM


The Defence argues that the Plaintiff has not shown item loss, income loss, or property damage. That addresses only compensatory and pecuniary damages, which the Plaintiff did not plead. The Plaintiff pleaded nominal, consequential, and punitive damages.


Nominal damages under Part III, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act are available where a legal cause of action is established even though the Plaintiff suffered no substantial loss. By statute, there is no diminution of award and no defence to nominal damages. The "no pecuniary loss" argument therefore cannot reach them.


Consequential damages for loss of enjoyment are recognized under Part III, Section 5, and may be proven by witness testimony, a reasonable person test, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer finds persuasive, on the balance of probabilities. Pecuniary loss is not required.


Under Rule 5.3, a Motion to Dismiss may be directed at specific relief. But even if the Court later reduced or denied consequential or punitive relief, that narrows the remedy. It does not dismiss the case, because the claim for civil damages arising from Murder and the request for nominal damages still stand.


IV. THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY IS NOT INVALID BECAUSE HE IS A PARTY


No rule under Section 5 permits dismissal because the Plaintiff is also a witness. A party may testify to facts within his personal knowledge. The Plaintiff has personal knowledge of being inside Eapt-2, of the Defendant entering without permission, of the Defendant killing him, and of the resulting disruption and loss of enjoyment. "Expected testimony" is the witness summary required by the complaint format, not speculation. Any challenge to credibility belongs at cross-examination, not on a Motion to Dismiss.


V. THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT


The Defence applies the wrong standard. Punitive damages under Part III, Section 3 require outrageous conduct, which the statute defines to include conduct where the defendant intended to cause harm or acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm would occur. It does not require premeditation or prior threats.


Entering another person's premises without permission and killing that person inside is sufficient at this stage to plead both intent to cause harm and reckless disregard for the Plaintiff's rights, interests, and safety. Whether that conduct ultimately meets the outrageous standard is for the finder of fact.


VI. THERE IS NO MATERIAL FACTUAL ERROR (RULE 5.14)


Rule 5.14 permits dismissal only where it is clear through the course of discovery that the Plaintiff made a factual error. The Defence has shown no such thing. It relies on a description drawn from a separate case, not on any evidence submitted in this case under Rules 4.2 and 4.6, and the burden to make a factual error clear rests with the Defence.


There is no error to correct. On May 25, 2026, the date of the incident pleaded in the Complaint, Plot C231 was the Plaintiff's apartment, exactly as the Complaint states. Any later change in the designation or use of the premises postdates the killing and does not describe the premises as it existed at the time of the incident. The Defence cannot manufacture a factual error by pointing to the status of the premises on a different date.


The point is also immaterial. Even on the Defence's own characterization, no element of the claim changes. It does not place the incident in the wilderness. It does not show the Defendant had permission to enter. It does not establish self-defence. It does not establish Castle Law, because Castle Law protects an owner or resident defending against an intruder, and the Defendant was the intruder, not the owner or lawful occupant of Plot C231. The label of the premises is irrelevant to liability.


VII. THE CORE CLAIM SURVIVES


The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as unlawfully killing another player. Section 10 of the Criminal Terminology Act defines unlawful killing as a death where the killed player did not have /police consent enabled and the killing was not justified by self-defence, Castle Law, or a government-sanctioned event. The Plaintiff did not have /police consent enabled, and none of the justifications apply.


The Plaintiff's path is expressly authorized. Part II, Section 4(3)(b) of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides that where a wrong is both a crime and a civil wrong, the plaintiff may pursue civil damages arising from the crime, and Part I, Section 6 of the Criminal Code Act confirms that crimes may be used to seek civil damages. This is a civil action for damages, not a criminal prosecution. The claim survives, and the case should not be dismissed.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defence's Motion to Dismiss in full.


In the alternative, if the Court finds any wording requires clarification, the Plaintiff requests leave under Rule 3.3 to clarify that on the date of the incident, Eapt-2, Plot C231, was the Plaintiff's apartment, that the Plaintiff lawfully occupied it at that time, and that the Defendant did not have permission to enter it or to kill the Plaintiff there.

 
3mkTalal said:

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENCE MOTION TO DISMISS


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defence's Motion to Dismiss and asks that it be denied in full.


I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD


A Motion to Dismiss is not a trial on the merits. It does not weigh evidence or resolve credibility. Those are matters for witness testimony and the verdict. Under Rule 5.1, a Motion to Dismiss must specify the discovery rule relied upon and apply it using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions.


To the extent the Defence argues that the Plaintiff's testimony is "self-serving" or that there was no premeditation, those arguments are tied to no rule under Section 5. They are merits arguments about weight, not grounds for dismissal, and should be disregarded. This Court has previously declined to grant a Motion to Dismiss that failed to properly apply its cited rule (Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59).


II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS STATED A CLAIM AND SUBMITTED EVIDENCE (RULE 5.5)


Rule 5.5 permits dismissal only for failure to state a claim or where a claim has insufficient evidence to support it. Neither applies.


The Plaintiff stated a claim for civil damages arising from Murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another player as defined in Section 10 of the Criminal Terminology Act, and civil damages for such conduct are permitted under the Redmont Civil Code Act and the civil-damages principles of the Criminal Code Act. The Plaintiff also submitted evidence: exhibits P-001 through P-005, uploaded directly to the forums in compliance with Rule 4.6, together with first-hand witness testimony. Those exhibits establish that the Plaintiff died, that the Defendant was present inside Eapt-2, that the location was Plot C231, and that the incident occurred inside controlled premises rather than the wilderness.


That is evidence. A dispute over its weight is not an absence of evidence, and Rule 5.5 is not satisfied where exhibits and testimony exist.


III. THE DAMAGES ARGUMENTS DO NOT DEFEAT THE CLAIM


The Defence argues that the Plaintiff has not shown item loss, income loss, or property damage. That addresses only compensatory and pecuniary damages, which the Plaintiff did not plead. The Plaintiff pleaded nominal, consequential, and punitive damages.


Nominal damages under Part III, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act are available where a legal cause of action is established even though the Plaintiff suffered no substantial loss. By statute, there is no diminution of award and no defence to nominal damages. The "no pecuniary loss" argument therefore cannot reach them.


Consequential damages for loss of enjoyment are recognized under Part III, Section 5, and may be proven by witness testimony, a reasonable person test, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer finds persuasive, on the balance of probabilities. Pecuniary loss is not required.


Under Rule 5.3, a Motion to Dismiss may be directed at specific relief. But even if the Court later reduced or denied consequential or punitive relief, that narrows the remedy. It does not dismiss the case, because the claim for civil damages arising from Murder and the request for nominal damages still stand.


IV. THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY IS NOT INVALID BECAUSE HE IS A PARTY


No rule under Section 5 permits dismissal because the Plaintiff is also a witness. A party may testify to facts within his personal knowledge. The Plaintiff has personal knowledge of being inside Eapt-2, of the Defendant entering without permission, of the Defendant killing him, and of the resulting disruption and loss of enjoyment. "Expected testimony" is the witness summary required by the complaint format, not speculation. Any challenge to credibility belongs at cross-examination, not on a Motion to Dismiss.


V. THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT


The Defence applies the wrong standard. Punitive damages under Part III, Section 3 require outrageous conduct, which the statute defines to include conduct where the defendant intended to cause harm or acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm would occur. It does not require premeditation or prior threats.


Entering another person's premises without permission and killing that person inside is sufficient at this stage to plead both intent to cause harm and reckless disregard for the Plaintiff's rights, interests, and safety. Whether that conduct ultimately meets the outrageous standard is for the finder of fact.


VI. THERE IS NO MATERIAL FACTUAL ERROR (RULE 5.14)


Rule 5.14 permits dismissal only where it is clear through the course of discovery that the Plaintiff made a factual error. The Defence has shown no such thing. It relies on a description drawn from a separate case, not on any evidence submitted in this case under Rules 4.2 and 4.6, and the burden to make a factual error clear rests with the Defence.


There is no error to correct. On May 25, 2026, the date of the incident pleaded in the Complaint, Plot C231 was the Plaintiff's apartment, exactly as the Complaint states. Any later change in the designation or use of the premises postdates the killing and does not describe the premises as it existed at the time of the incident. The Defence cannot manufacture a factual error by pointing to the status of the premises on a different date.


The point is also immaterial. Even on the Defence's own characterization, no element of the claim changes. It does not place the incident in the wilderness. It does not show the Defendant had permission to enter. It does not establish self-defence. It does not establish Castle Law, because Castle Law protects an owner or resident defending against an intruder, and the Defendant was the intruder, not the owner or lawful occupant of Plot C231. The label of the premises is irrelevant to liability.


VII. THE CORE CLAIM SURVIVES


The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as unlawfully killing another player. Section 10 of the Criminal Terminology Act defines unlawful killing as a death where the killed player did not have /police consent enabled and the killing was not justified by self-defence, Castle Law, or a government-sanctioned event. The Plaintiff did not have /police consent enabled, and none of the justifications apply.


The Plaintiff's path is expressly authorized. Part II, Section 4(3)(b) of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides that where a wrong is both a crime and a civil wrong, the plaintiff may pursue civil damages arising from the crime, and Part I, Section 6 of the Criminal Code Act confirms that crimes may be used to seek civil damages. This is a civil action for damages, not a criminal prosecution. The claim survives, and the case should not be dismissed.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defence's Motion to Dismiss in full.


In the alternative, if the Court finds any wording requires clarification, the Plaintiff requests leave under Rule 3.3 to clarify that on the date of the incident, Eapt-2, Plot C231, was the Plaintiff's apartment, that the Plaintiff lawfully occupied it at that time, and that the Defendant did not have permission to enter it or to kill the Plaintiff there.

Click to expand...

Objection


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

The Plaintiff, in their Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, stated: "On May 25, 2026, the date of the incident pleaded in the Complaint, Plot C231 was the Plaintiff's apartment, exactly as the Complaint states. Any later change in the designation or use of the premises postdates the killing and does not describe the premises as it existed at the time of the incident. The Defence cannot manufacture a factual error by pointing to the status of the premises on a different date."

This statement is knowingly false. A filing already on this docket, megaprogam3r v. Osirisx88 [2026] DCR 57, describes the same premises, Plot C231 Eapt-2, as the office of 3MK & Associates, under renovation, with a worker present, on the exact same date.

The Plaintiff cannot represent to this Court that the premises was a purely private residential apartment at that time when a separate civil action arising from the same plot at the same moment describes it as a commercial office under renovation. These two descriptions cannot both be true, and the Plaintiff, as an attorney familiar with this docket, knew or ought to have known of this contradicting filing when making the representation.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.



Objection


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

The Plaintiff, in their Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, stated: "'Expected testimony' is the witness summary required by the complaint format, not speculation."

This is a knowingly false statement of fact. The official case filing template states only: "Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable." That is the entirety of the instruction. The template contains no requirement, guidance, or suggestion that testimony be described as "expected," framed prospectively, or summarised in any particular way whatsoever. The word "expected" does not appear in the template at all.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

 
Anthony_Org said:

Objection


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

The Plaintiff, in their Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, stated: "On May 25, 2026, the date of the incident pleaded in the Complaint, Plot C231 was the Plaintiff's apartment, exactly as the Complaint states. Any later change in the designation or use of the premises postdates the killing and does not describe the premises as it existed at the time of the incident. The Defence cannot manufacture a factual error by pointing to the status of the premises on a different date."

This statement is knowingly false. A filing already on this docket, megaprogam3r v. Osirisx88 [2026] DCR 57, describes the same premises, Plot C231 Eapt-2, as the office of 3MK & Associates, under renovation, with a worker present, on the exact same date.

The Plaintiff cannot represent to this Court that the premises was a purely private residential apartment at that time when a separate civil action arising from the same plot at the same moment describes it as a commercial office under renovation. These two descriptions cannot both be true, and the Plaintiff, as an attorney familiar with this docket, knew or ought to have known of this contradicting filing when making the representation.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.



Objection


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

The Plaintiff, in their Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, stated: "'Expected testimony' is the witness summary required by the complaint format, not speculation."

This is a knowingly false statement of fact. The official case filing template states only: "Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable." That is the entirety of the instruction. The template contains no requirement, guidance, or suggestion that testimony be described as "expected," framed prospectively, or summarised in any particular way whatsoever. The word "expected" does not appear in the template at all.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

Click to expand...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE DEFENCE'S OBJECTIONS


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff answers the Defence's two objections, each styled as Perjury and seeking sanctions.


I. THE PERJURY OBJECTION DOES NOT LIE AGAINST A BRIEF


The Objections Guide defines Perjury as occurring "when a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath," with proof to be presented alongside the objection. That definition is not met. The statements the Defence challenges were made in the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. They are legal argument by a party in a brief. They are not witness testimony, no oath has been administered, and no witness has yet testified in this matter, which remains at the pre-answer motion stage. The Guide directs that suspected perjury by a witness proceeds by a motion to impeach, not by objection. Both objections should be overruled on that basis alone.


II. OBJECTION ONE: THE PREMISES


Without waiving the above, the Plaintiff addresses the substance. The Plaintiff does not dispute that Plot C231 Eapt-2 was undergoing renovation toward use as the offices of 3MK & Associates, and acknowledges the companion matter on this docket describing it that way. That is consistent with the Plaintiff's position. C231 Eapt-2 is premises controlled by the Plaintiff and 3MK & Associates and was lawfully occupied by the Plaintiff. Premises that one controls and that is mid-renovation may fairly be described either as the Plaintiff's apartment or as an office under renovation. Both describe the same private, controlled, non-wilderness premises. To the extent the Response implied that a change in use postdates the killing, the Plaintiff clarifies that the premises was under renovation at the time and withdraws that implication. A candid clarification to the Court is the opposite of perjury.


The dispute is in any event immaterial. Whether the premises is called an apartment or an office under renovation, no element of the claim changes. It was not wilderness, the Plaintiff was lawfully present, the Defendant entered without permission, and no justification applies.


III. OBJECTION TWO: "EXPECTED TESTIMONY"


"Expected testimony" is the standard witness-summary format used in filings before this Court and appears throughout the docket. To the extent the Response described it as required by the complaint format, the Plaintiff clarifies that it is the established convention rather than a verbatim template mandate. That is a characterization of practice, not a knowingly false statement of fact. The underlying point is unaffected: a party may testify to facts within his personal knowledge, and being both party and witness is not a ground for dismissal under any rule in Section 5.


IV. CONCLUSION


The perjury objection does not lie against legal argument in a brief, and neither objection identifies a knowingly false statement of fact. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court overrule both objections and deny the request for sanctions.
 
3mkTalal said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE DEFENCE'S OBJECTIONS


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff answers the Defence's two objections, each styled as Perjury and seeking sanctions.


I. THE PERJURY OBJECTION DOES NOT LIE AGAINST A BRIEF


The Objections Guide defines Perjury as occurring "when a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath," with proof to be presented alongside the objection. That definition is not met. The statements the Defence challenges were made in the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. They are legal argument by a party in a brief. They are not witness testimony, no oath has been administered, and no witness has yet testified in this matter, which remains at the pre-answer motion stage. The Guide directs that suspected perjury by a witness proceeds by a motion to impeach, not by objection. Both objections should be overruled on that basis alone.


II. OBJECTION ONE: THE PREMISES


Without waiving the above, the Plaintiff addresses the substance. The Plaintiff does not dispute that Plot C231 Eapt-2 was undergoing renovation toward use as the offices of 3MK & Associates, and acknowledges the companion matter on this docket describing it that way. That is consistent with the Plaintiff's position. C231 Eapt-2 is premises controlled by the Plaintiff and 3MK & Associates and was lawfully occupied by the Plaintiff. Premises that one controls and that is mid-renovation may fairly be described either as the Plaintiff's apartment or as an office under renovation. Both describe the same private, controlled, non-wilderness premises. To the extent the Response implied that a change in use postdates the killing, the Plaintiff clarifies that the premises was under renovation at the time and withdraws that implication. A candid clarification to the Court is the opposite of perjury.


The dispute is in any event immaterial. Whether the premises is called an apartment or an office under renovation, no element of the claim changes. It was not wilderness, the Plaintiff was lawfully present, the Defendant entered without permission, and no justification applies.


III. OBJECTION TWO: "EXPECTED TESTIMONY"


"Expected testimony" is the standard witness-summary format used in filings before this Court and appears throughout the docket. To the extent the Response described it as required by the complaint format, the Plaintiff clarifies that it is the established convention rather than a verbatim template mandate. That is a characterization of practice, not a knowingly false statement of fact. The underlying point is unaffected: a party may testify to facts within his personal knowledge, and being both party and witness is not a ground for dismissal under any rule in Section 5.


IV. CONCLUSION


The perjury objection does not lie against legal argument in a brief, and neither objection identifies a knowingly false statement of fact. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court overrule both objections and deny the request for sanctions.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The Plaintiff, in their Answer to the Defence's Objections, stated: "'Expected testimony' is the standard witness-summary format used in filings before this Court and appears throughout the docket."

This is a new knowingly false statement of fact. In his prior Response, the Plaintiff claimed that "expected testimony" was required by the complaint template. That claim was demonstrably false, as the official case filing template contains no such requirement or language. Caught in that misrepresentation, the Plaintiff has now pivoted to a different claim entirely, that "expected testimony" is an established convention appearing throughout the docket. This claim is demonstrably false throughout the 423 cases in the District Courts archives alone.

The Plaintiff has made two contradictory justifications for the same phrase. First, it was a template requirement. Now it is a docket convention. The escalating nature of these justifications is indicative of knowingly false statements made to deflect scrutiny rather than to assist the Court.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court find that the Plaintiff impose a conduct strike due to the Plaintiff's outrageous conduct.

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE DEFENCE'S THIRD OBJECTION​


Your Honor,


This is the Defence's third objection styled as Perjury, and like the two before it, it fails.

I. PERJURY STILL DOES NOT LIE AGAINST A BRIEF


As already stated, the Objections Guide defines Perjury as a witness perjuring themselves on the stand by lying or misrepresenting facts, with proof to be made with the objection. The challenged sentence appears in the Plaintiff's Answer to the Defence's Objections. It is legal argument by a party in a brief, not witness testimony on the stand, and no witness has testified in this matter. The objection is misapplied on its face.


II. THE DEFENCE CARRIES THE BURDEN AND HAS PRESENTED NOTHING


The Defence asserts the phrase is "demonstrably false throughout the 423 cases in the District Courts archives" but submits no evidence in support. A Perjury objection requires proof to be made with the objection. A sweeping assertion about hundreds of cases, unaccompanied by a single citation, does not meet that standard, and the burden is the Defence's, not the Plaintiff's.


III. THERE IS NO FALSEHOOD


The Plaintiff described, in good faith, a witness-summary phrasing the Plaintiff has encountered in filing practice. A description of practice offered in argument is not testimony on the stand, and a difference of opinion over how common a phrasing is does not make it knowingly false. The substance is unaffected in any event: a party may testify to facts within his personal knowledge, and being both party and witness is not a ground for dismissal under any rule in Section 5.


IV. CONCLUSION


The Defence has filed three successive perjury objections against legal argument in briefs, none supported by the proof the Objections Guide requires. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court overrule the objection and deny the request for a conduct strike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top