Lawsuit: In Session The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200 [2026] DCR 154

Considering there are many objections, we will refer to them the following way

1) Name of the witness
2) Question Number
3) Objection Number (from top to bottom)
4) Objection type
5) Objection Reply

e.g: frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)
jsrkiwi said:

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Asking the witness to opine on what messages are “implying” is asking the witness to opine on a legal conclusion, which ought to be reserved to Your Honour. Counsel is always able to argue what a message is “implying” in his closing arguments.
Click to expand...
Failure to do so will be grounds for Contempt of Court charges.

@Y8l, you may respond to the objections within 48 hours.
 
Your honor, @Poker

I am requesting a 24-hour extension to finish my draft due to:

I am almost done with the task, but I still have to make it look presentable and finish the last three.

I am still revising for my Exams

I hope the court accepts this request sent by the @Y8l

Date: 22th September 2026
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS

Your Honor, @Poker

Due to the court's order, the plaintiff respectfully submits the following concerning the defendant's objections

I understand that the following may be confusing, so I will provide a key.

For example

In the entry frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION):
  • frodo1005 = Witness Name
  • 2 = Question Number
  • .3 = Objection Number (the 3rd objection under Question 2)
  • (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION) = Objection Type
  • And the reply is underneath


WITNESS: frodo1005

frodo1005, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Overrule: Probing a witness about what they saw in the public chat at a relevant time is a routine foundational question, not a leading question.

frodo1005, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: The words "statements" and "products" clearly refer to the contents of the public chat and armor sales mentioned in the Complaint.

frodo1005, 2.1 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overrule: This questions asks about the Defendant's characterizations of the Player's items in a continuous public chat observation. If the Court wishes, the Plaintiff would be happy to break it into sub-questions.

frodo1005, 2.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Implying" clearly refers to the straightforward interpretation and impression of the text messages published in public chat.

frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks for testimony about what messages the witness saw in public chat, not a legal conclusion.

frodo1005, 2.4 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: Examination of a witness provides the means of introducing testimonial evidence.

frodo1005, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: In a defamation and tortious interference matter, the perception of a reasonable third-party reader/listener is a factual issue, not a legal conclusion to be reached by counsel.

frodo1005, 4.2 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: The question asks the witness to compare two different characterizations ("business rather than mere jokes") of the Player and ask them to testify what they actually saw in the chat.

frodo1005, 5.1 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: The question focuses the witness's recollection on the reactions of the people in public chat following the statements at issue.

frodo1005, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Overrule: The question asks only for what the witness actually saw and noted in public chat ("did you note... in chat"), not about what they think someone else might have felt.

frodo1005, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overrule: Question 1 asks whether the witness was in the global chat at the time of the event, which provides the foundation.

frodo1005, 5.4 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks for the witness's observations about the chat reactions to the event, which is a request for factual testimony.

WITNESS: .august4496

.august4496, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Overrule: Asking if a witness was present during a certain time period in public chat is a foundational preliminary question.

.august4496, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Allegations" clearly refer to the statements made in public chat about the armor sales mentioned in the Complaint.

.august4496, 2.1 (HEARSAY)

Overrule: The statements of the Defendant Roy405 are party-opponent admissions and are introduced to show the effect on the listeners/market rather than the truth of the matter asserted.

.august4496, 2.2 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: First-hand witness examination is the appropriate method of introducing chat statements into evidence.

.august4496, 2.3 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: The timing and content of the statements are clearly connected to the public chat incident mentioned in the filings.

.august4496, 2.4 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: Asks a yes/no question about whether the witness personally read a published statement in the global chat.

.august4496, 2.5 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overrule: This question asks about one subject: about whether the witness read the published statements accusing the Player.

.august4496, 3.1 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Claims" clearly refer to the Defendant's public statements that the product was a scam.

.august4496, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: Lay opinion about the effect of public statements on the perception of a merchant are admissible.

.august4496, 4.2 (RELEVANCE)

Overrule: What the statements said and their effect on readers of the global chat are directly relevant to proving commercial harm and reputation damage.

.august4496, 4.3 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: The fact that the Plaintiff is a merchant selling products in the public chat is a fundamental element of this lawsuit.

.august4496, 5.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks the witness to testify what they know and have seen, i.e., whether there was a disruption in the business.

.august4496, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Overrule: The question asks only for the observable interactions and occurrences the witness saw in the public chat.

.august4496, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overrule: The fact that the witness was in the public chat at the time of the incident and following it provides the foundation.

.august4496, 5.4 (COMPOUND)

Overrule: Both parts of the question concern the same incident: public chat disruptions as a result of the statements made.

DATED: This 21st day of September 2026
 
frodo1005, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Sustained. the question includes information the examiner seeks to confirm (were made by Defendants roy405).

frodo1005, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained. which statement (that are in the evidence) are trying to be proven here? I wish this question was more precise.

frodo1005, 2.1 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Sustained. Plaintiff doesn't oppose to break down the question. And I think this would be great to reduce possible confusions.

frodo1005, 2.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained as moot (see below ruling).

frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. Plaintiff says "clearly refers to the straightforward interpretation and impression of the text messages published in public chat". Witness testimony is reserved to factual review.

frodo1005, 2.4 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overruled. Assumes facts not in evidence occurs "When a question presumes something as true that has not been established by evidence". Statement "does not work" wasn't assumed as true in the question.

frodo1005, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. A witness may testify to their own personal reaction or what they observed, but they cannot draw conclusions about the nature of the evidence or what the Defendants meant to do.

frodo1005, 4.2 (LEADING QUESTION)

Sustained. The question include information the examiner seeks to confirm (mere jokes)

frodo1005, 5.1 (LEADING QUESTION)

Sustained. The question include information the examiner seeks to confirm (caused confusion, hesitation or disinterest).

frodo1005, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Sustained. As seen in Post #69, statements in chat can be misleading. Councilor should have called possible buyers as witnesses.

frodo1005, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overruled. Plaintiff argues that "The fact that the witness was in the public chat at the time of the incident and following it provides the foundation". This court consider this acceptable (but still a speculation as in frodo1005, 5.2) (SPECULATION).

frodo1005, 5.4 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. The question calls frodo1005 to express an opinion on weather the statements caused "confusion, hesitation or disinterest" or not.

.august4496, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Sustained as in frodo1005, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS).

.august4496, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained as in frodo1005, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS).

.august4496, 2.1 (HEARSAY)

Overruled. As in .august4496, 2.3 (AMBIGUOUS), this is an ambiguous question.

august4496, 2.2 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Sustained. statement "don’t buy it it’s a scam" is not within evidence and is being assumed as a fact.

.august4496, 2.3 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained. It may be on the fillings, but we need it contextualized and, if possible, hyperlinked on the question.

.august4496, 2.4 (LEADING QUESTION)

Sustained. include information the examiner seeks to confirm (published by the Defendants).

.august4496, 2.5 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overruled. This should not confuse the witnesses.

.august4496, 3.1 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained. Which public statements (claims)?

.august4496, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. "Lay opinion about the effect of public statements on the perception of a merchant are admissible". In which grounds? Please, mention authorities and legal arguments to substantiate your responses. Calls for a conclusion "Occurs when a question seeks an opinion rather than factual information".

.august4496, 4.2 (RELEVANCE)

Sustained. As in #96

.august4496, 4.3 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Partially Sustained. Merchant is a person/business "engaged in commerce" per Merian Webster dictionary, Plaintiff is a business that sells bulletproof armor. However, from the facts and evidence i cannot see prior standing and trustworthiness, and plantiff failed to explain in his response why this would be the case. As such i sustain this part.

.august4496, 5.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. "did these public chat statements harm the Plaintiffs trade reputation" is calling for a conclusion over the chat statements.

.august4496, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Sustained. Plaintiff should have called relevant witnesses to question if the statements made impacts against their decision line. As in #69, it's speculative to assume every chat about The Forge, even in the context present on the files, was made by a potential customer.

.august4496, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overruled. This is speculation.

.august4496, 5.4 (COMPOUND)

Sustained. This question is confusing, personaly i don't know if the second sentence is an explanation for the first sentence or is another question.
Click to expand...

The following questions are struck and ordered to be REFILED within 48 hours to be compliant with the ruling above. If Plaintiff deems any of the questions improper to refile, Plaintiff may elect not to refile them.

frodo1005
Question 1,2,4,5

.august4496
Question 1,2,4,5

Plaintiff is ordered, again, to comply to Court Rules and Procedures and Objections Guide, under pain of Contempt of Court.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S REFILED WITNESS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

Your Honor, @Poker

Due to the Court's direction, the Plaintiff submits the following questions for witness frodo1005 and witness .august4496.

WITNESS: frodo1005

Question 1: What was your in-game position and chat activity on August 7th?

Question 2: What messages, if any, did you see appear in global chat from Defendant roy405 at that time?

Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.

Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.

WITNESS: .august4496

Question 1: What messages, if any, did you see appear in global chat from Defendant roy405 at that time?

Question 2: What statements, if any, did you see Defendant roy405 publish in global chat at that time?

Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.

Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.

DATED: This 29th day of September 2026
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To make it easier to follow the objections against the refiled questions, I have numbered them according to Your Honour’s numbering methodology, with an additional master objection at the top.

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE RE TIMELINESS

The refiled questions were filed after the deadline had passed.

At 7:28 PM (UTC) on 26 September 2026, Your Honour set a 48-hour deadline for the refiling of questions by the Plaintiff. This deadline passed at 7:28 PM (UTC) on 28 September 2026. The Plaintiff refiled his questions at 5:34 pm (UTC) on 29 September 2026, approximately 22 hours late.

The Plaintiff had the option of asking for an extension, which he did not do. Also, the refiling of 8 questions is not a particularly onerous task requiring much time.

Therefore, the Defendant asks Your Honour to strike the refiled questions in full.


Y8l said:
Question 1: What was your in-game position and chat activity on August 7th?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – COMPOUND QUESTION

frodo1005 1.1 (Compound)

The question asks for two distinctly different things: “What was your in-game position?” and “What was your chat activity?”. These ought to be severed.


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – AMBIGUOUS

frodo1005 1.2 (Ambiguous)

“In-game position” is unclear. It could refer to employment position (i.e. rank) at The Forge, or it could mean physical position (i.e. location) within Reveille.

“Chat activity” is very broad in scope, and could refer to global chat, local chat, murmur chat, ask chat, international chat, departmental chat or in-game direct messages. I’m presuming that the Plaintiff means a combination of global chat and local chat, but I could be wrong.


Y8l said:
Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – ASKED AND ANSWERED

frodo1005 4.1 (Asked and answered)

Question 2 already asks the witness what messages from Defendant roy405 he observed in global chat. Question 4 again asks the witness to recount those same messages. No additional testimony could be solicited.


Y8l said:
Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – AMBIGUOUS

frodo1005 5.1 (Ambiguous)

The phrase “occurred following the posting of those messages” does not define a specific timeframe. Is the witness being asked about the period immediately following the messages; the remainder of that specific conversation; the remainder of the day; or some undefined later period?


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – HEARSAY

frodo1005 5.2 (Hearsay)

This question solicits hearsay from the witness. If the Plaintiff wishes to find out how a specific player interpreted the messages by roy405, he should have called that player as a witness and put the question to him. The Plaintiff chose not to do so, and is attempting to introduce statements by third parties in an attempt to prove the impact roy405’s messages had on third parties’ perceptions.


Y8l said:
Question 2: What statements, if any, did you see Defendant roy405 publish in global chat at that time?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – ASKED AND ANSWERED

.august4496 2.1 (Asked and answered)

Question 1 asks the witness what “messages” from Defendant roy405 they saw appear in global chat at the relevant time. Question 2 asks what “statements” from Defendant roy405 they saw published in global chat at that same time. “Messages” and “statements” do not create a materially different inquiry. The witness is being asked for the same information twice.


Y8l said:
Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – ASKED AND ANSWERED

.august4496 4.1 (Asked and answered)

The witness has already been asked in Questions 1 and 2 to identify the messages or statements they observed Defendant roy405 say in global chat. Question 4 asks the witness for the same information for a third time, merely phrased as what messages they “remember”. There is no need to solicit this same information from the witness more than once.


Y8l said:
Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – AMBIGUOUS

.august4496 5.1 (Ambiguous)

The phrase “occurred following the posting of those messages” does not define a specific timeframe. Is the witness being asked about the period immediately following the messages; the remainder of that specific conversation; the remainder of the day; or some undefined later period?


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – HEARSAY

.august4496 5.2 (Hearsay)

This question solicits hearsay from the witness. If the Plaintiff wishes to find out how a specific player interpreted the messages by roy405, he should have called that player as a witness and put the question to him. The Plaintiff chose not to do so, and is attempting to introduce statements by third parties in an attempt to prove the impact roy405’s messages had on third parties’ perceptions.

 
I find counselor y8l in Contempt of Court for failing to refile the questions in time.

Breach of Procedure objection sustained, all refilled questions will be struck.

Question 3 for .august4496 will also be struck, as the objection against this question was sustained. I misread the ruling and didn't add it to the list of questions to be amended/struck in post #105 (but I would have allowed/asked Plaintiff to amend the refile, had the refiled version been provided within the deadline).

@frodo1005 shall answer the non stricked questions directed to him (Post #98) within 24 hours.
 
"What words or phrasing do you remember seeing posted in public chat by either Defendant regarding the Plaintiff?"

Answer:
I remebember PhatCat2200 posting an /ad "frodo1005 is a scammer" after I posted an /ad about my bulletproof armor.

I remember roy405 wanted to test the armor. I agreed. He proceeded to shoot me with a crossbow. I felt like he's trying to kill me, rather than testing the armor, so I ran away. Then he said "bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol", "holy scammer". I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets. Despite that he proceeded to call me a scammer in some way multiple times in public chat, announce to people to not buy my armor. Also throughout the whole month while this case was pending, he called me a scammer multiple times/discouraged people from buying it when i posted an /ad about the bulletproof armor. Some messages I remember: "frodo1005 is just scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor""; "it aint even arrow proof so bro is just lying"; "frodo1005 and .august4496's "bulletproof armor" is a scam, dont bother buying it".
 
frodo1005 said:
"What words or phrasing do you remember seeing posted in public chat by either Defendant regarding the Plaintiff?"

Answer:
I remebember PhatCat2200 posting an /ad "frodo1005 is a scammer" after I posted an /ad about my bulletproof armor.

I remember roy405 wanted to test the armor. I agreed. He proceeded to shoot me with a crossbow. I felt like he's trying to kill me, rather than testing the armor, so I ran away. Then he said "bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol", "holy scammer". I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets. Despite that he proceeded to call me a scammer in some way multiple times in public chat, announce to people to not buy my armor. Also throughout the whole month while this case was pending, he called me a scammer multiple times/discouraged people from buying it when i posted an /ad about the bulletproof armor. Some messages I remember: "frodo1005 is just scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor""; "it aint even arrow proof so bro is just lying"; "frodo1005 and .august4496's "bulletproof armor" is a scam, dont bother buying it".
Click to expand...

Objection



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

Your Honor,

At 2:54 PM CDT yesterday, you had said witness Frodo1005 had 24 hours to respond to the non struck questions. At 4:00 PM CDT, the witness responded to the questions. The witness took longer than 24 hours to respond, as such I ask you hold frodo1005 in contempt of court.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​



Objection



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

Your Honor,

Witness Frodo1005 said:

I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets.
Click to expand...

Witness Frodo1005 knew that Roy405 was shooting buckshot through his crossbow, not arrows. Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow. I ask that your honor hold Witness Frodo1005 with perjury.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​

 
EmeraldGuuy said:

Objection



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

Your Honor,

At 2:54 PM CDT yesterday, you had said witness Frodo1005 had 24 hours to respond to the non struck questions. At 4:00 PM CDT, the witness responded to the questions. The witness took longer than 24 hours to respond, as such I ask you hold frodo1005 in contempt of court.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​



Objection



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

Your Honor,

Witness Frodo1005 said:



Witness Frodo1005 knew that Roy405 was shooting buckshot through his crossbow, not arrows. Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow. I ask that your honor hold Witness Frodo1005 with perjury.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​

Click to expand...

Counselor, i have two questions.

1) Where is established that Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow?
2) Can a crossbow shot buckshots? If so, can i have the source to this information?
 
Poker said:
Counselor, i have two questions.

1) Where is established that Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow?
2) Can a crossbow shot buckshots? If so, can i have the source to this information?
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

1. Claim 1 is based off of D-001, I apologize for not attaching it in my previous objection.

2. Claim 2 is based off of D-002, where the crossbow is loaded with buckshot, please disregard my messy and scattered inventory.

D-001.jpg

1790811589238.png
 
EmeraldGuuy said:
Your Honor,

1. Claim 1 is based off of D-001, I apologize for not attaching it in my previous objection.

2. Claim 2 is based off of D-002, where the crossbow is loaded with buckshot, please disregard my messy and scattered inventory.

View attachment 100657

View attachment 100656
Click to expand...
Defendant objects to witness question alleging perjury. He argues that Roy405 was using buckshots [during the test?] and Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow, and because of that statement "I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets" is perjury.

D-001 shows Roy405 and frodo1005 talking about this exact same mechanic. First, Roy405 says "fun fact" and "u can load buckshot into crossbows, and bows". frodo1005 says "ok and?", Roy405 replicated "therefore ur not immune to buckshot LOL". frodo1005 finalizes with "still not a gun?". D-002 proves a crossbown can hold a buckshot.

According to the CCA, a person commits perjury if he knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law.

This Court fails to see how the statement "I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets" constitutes false testimony. The Defendant's argument that Frodo1005 knew Roy405 was shooting buckshot is irrelevant to the perjury in this matter. The witness was testifying about the existence of an argument they had, and D-001 corroborates that Frodo1005 did argue that point. The perjury objection is overruled.

Further, breach of procedure objection is overruled. As this is the first occurrence of a breach, the Witnesses are requested to respond within the prescribed time and request an extension if necessary.
 

Brief


Cross-examination questions for frodo1005​

Please note, Q2 is a followup to Q1; Q4 and Q5 are followups to Q3; Q6 is a followup to Q5; Q8 is a followup to Q7; and Q9 is a followup to Q8.

1. During the crossbow test you described under direct examination, did any of roy405's shots cause you to lose health?
2. Before the shots were fired, did you personally inspect the ammunition loaded into roy405's crossbow?

3. In P-002, roy405 stated ‘bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol’, and his next message was ‘holy scammer’, correct?
4. So, anyone reading that exchange could see that roy405's criticism was based on the result of his crossbow test, correct?
5. During that argument, did roy405 say anything to you about what could be loaded into a crossbow?
6. If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?

7. Are you familiar with the signage displayed The Forge’s stores concerning the armour at issue in this case?
8. Is there a sign headed “Disclaimer” concerning that armour?
9. What does that disclaimer say about the armour’s protection against bullets?

The Defence has no questions for .august4496

 
Poker said:
@Y8l you have 48 hours to place objections
Click to expand...
Your honor

I am starting exams this week and have been revising I have not been able to fully finish the objections

I am requesting a 24 hour extension as tomorrow I should be available
 
Your Honor, @Poker
the Plaintiff objects to the following questions by the Defense during their cross-examination of witness frodo1005:

Objection


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

Question 3 asks two things by asking the witness to confirm both that roy405 made the comment about "bulletproof armour" and that roy405 then sent the "holy scammer" message, all in one question.



Objection


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

Question 4 asks what "anyone reading that exchange could see", requiring the witness to provide an opinion and speculate on what other people might think and not give factual information. In addition, it's phrased as an argument for the court to consider, not an objective fact.



Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 5 asks "During that argument..." which assumes that what happened was an "argument" of some kind. This fact has not been established by any previous testimony or evidence during this examination.



Objection


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

Question 6 asks the witness to testify about what someone else (the Defendant roy405) said to someone else in order to prove that what they said was true about what could be put in a crossbow.



Date: 4th of October 2026
 

Brief


Response to cross-examination objections by the Plaintiff​

I have used a similar style of question numbering/referencing that Your Honour used previously in this case. To save Your Honour having to scroll back and forth, I’ve included the relevant question and objection in quote boxes throughout.

Cross-frodo1005, 3.1 (Compound question)​

jsrkiwi said:
3. In P-002, roy405 stated ‘bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol’, and his next message was ‘holy scammer’, correct?
Click to expand...
Y8l said:

Objection


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

Question 3 asks two things by asking the witness to confirm both that roy405 made the comment about "bulletproof armour" and that roy405 then sent the "holy scammer" message, all in one question.

Click to expand...
The defence asks permission to sever question 3 and resubmit as follows:
3a. In P-002, did roy405 write “bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol”?
3b. Was roy405’s next message in P-002 “holy scammer”?

Cross-frodo1005, 4.1 (Calls for a conclusion / Argumentative)​

jsrkiwi said:
4. So, anyone reading that exchange could see that roy405's criticism was based on the result of his crossbow test, correct?
Click to expand...
Y8l said:

Objection


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

Question 4 asks what "anyone reading that exchange could see", requiring the witness to provide an opinion and speculate on what other people might think and not give factual information. In addition, it's phrased as an argument for the court to consider, not an objective fact.

Click to expand...
The Court expressly permitted questions calling for conclusions during cross-examination in post #115. The Defence therefore opposes the calls for a conclusion objection.

To address the separate concern about hypothetical readers, the Defence requests leave to reword Q4:
4. In the exchange shown in P-002, the result of roy405’s crossbow test was the reason he gave for calling you a scammer, correct?

Cross-frodo1005, 5.1 (Assumes facts not in evidence)​

jsrkiwi said:
5. During that argument, did roy405 say anything to you about what could be loaded into a crossbow?
Click to expand...
Y8l said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 5 asks "During that argument..." which assumes that what happened was an "argument" of some kind. This fact has not been established by any previous testimony or evidence during this examination.

Click to expand...
Under direct examination (#109), frodo1005 characterised this exchange between frodo1005 and roy405 as an argument. He stated “I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets”.

The Defence therefore asks that this objection be overruled. In the alternative, the defence would ask to replace the word “argument” with “exchange”.

Cross-frodo1005, 6.1 (Hearsay)​

jsrkiwi said:
6. If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?
Click to expand...
Y8l said:

Objection


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

Question 6 asks the witness to testify about what someone else (the Defendant roy405) said to someone else in order to prove that what they said was true about what could be put in a crossbow.

Click to expand...
This question seeks to establish the explanation roy405 gave the witness during the exchange described in his direct testimony. This is so that the full context and content of the exchange is included in the record, not merely sections hand-selected by the Plaintiff. We do not seek to use this question to prove what ammunition a crossbow can fire or what ammunition roy405 actually used. The Plaintiff’s objection incorrectly assumes the purpose for which the answer is sought.

The hearsay definition in this Honourable Court’s guide states that hearsay occurs when “a witness testifies about statements made by others to prove the truth of those statements”. The defence is merely attempting to obtain the full context of the exchange, not to prove the truth of any statement.

Therefore, the Defence asks that this objection be overruled.

 
Cross-frodo1005, 3.1 (Compound question)

Sustained.

Cross-frodo1005, 4.1 (Calls for a conclusion / Argumentative)

Partially Sustained. Because witness is adverse, this Court allowed conclusory and leading questions. But speculation wasn't permitted.

Cross-frodo1005, 5.1 (Assumes facts not in evidence)

Overruled. frodo1005 said it was a argument.

Cross-frodo1005, 6.1 (Hearsay)

Overruled. Defedant is not trying to prove the truth of statements, instead he is trying to expand what happened on the argument.
Click to expand...

To save the parties time, the Court update the question list and submits below. Post #116 is struck. @jsrkiwi let me know if there is any problem.

1. During the crossbow test you described under direct examination, did any of roy405's shots cause you to lose health?
2. Before the shots were fired, did you personally inspect the ammunition loaded into roy405's crossbow?

3a. In P-002, did roy405 write “bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol”?
3b. Was roy405’s next message in P-002 “holy scammer”?
4. In the exchange shown in P-002, the result of roy405’s crossbow test was the reason he gave for calling you a scammer, correct?
5. During that argument, did roy405 say anything to you about what could be loaded into a crossbow?
6. If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?

7. Are you familiar with the signage displayed The Forge’s stores concerning the armour at issue in this case?
8. Is there a sign headed “Disclaimer” concerning that armour?
9. What does that disclaimer say about the armour’s protection against bullets?
 
1. During the crossbow test you described under direct examination, did any of roy405's shots cause you to lose health?
Answer: Yes, I even remember it dealing 1 heart per hit.

2. Before the shots were fired, did you personally inspect the ammunition loaded into roy405's crossbow?
Answer: Not that I remember. I do remember being surprised that he started using a crossbow, because I expected it to be a gun test.

3a. In P-002, did roy405 write “bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol”?
Answer: Yes

3b. Was roy405’s next message in P-002 “holy scammer”?
Answer: Yes

4. In the exchange shown in P-002, the result of roy405’s crossbow test was the reason he gave for calling you a scammer, correct?
Answer: I can only assume so,I don't remember him explicitly saying 'the reason I'm calling you a scammer is..' or something like that.

5. During that argument, did roy405 say anything to you about what could be loaded into a crossbow?
Answer: Yes

6. If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?
Answer: I remember him telling me it can be loaded with a buckshot. I don't remember him mentioning any other bullets at that time. Now I know that you can load any bullet into a crossbow including rockets and mininukes. I also now know that it is a bug and a limitation of a plugin(confirmed to me by staff). Any bullets loaded into the crossbow act as normal arrows when shot.

7. Are you familiar with the signage displayed The Forge’s stores concerning the armour at issue in this case?
Answer: Yes

8. Is there a sign headed “Disclaimer” concerning that armour?
Answer: Yes

9. What does that disclaimer say about the armour’s protection against bullets?
At the time I'm writing this I have 3 locations selling the bulletproof armor. And all of the disclaimers use a bit different wording so I'll provide them all:
/gps cbd009 "it's resistant / To most bullets / with no damage / taken | bullets damage / the armor / 1 shot - 1 dura | the armor doesn't / protect against / explosive ammo / 40x46mm"
/gps cbd048 "it's resistant / to most bullets / with no damage / taken | bullets damage / the armor / 1 shot - 1 dura | the armor doesn't / protect against / explosives 40x46 / like rpg or mk-19"
/directions ArmorTools "it's resistant / to most bullets / with no damage / taken | bullets damage / the armor / 1 shot - 1 dura | the armor doesn't / protect against / explosive ammo / like 40x46mm"
"/" indicates a line split
"|" indicates the start of another sign
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honour,

Question 6 asks, “If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?”. The witness answered that question in the first two sentences of his response. The Defence objects to the following additional passage:

frodo1005 said:
Now I know that you can load any bullet into a crossbow including rockets and mininukes. I also now know that it is a bug and a limitation of a plugin(confirmed to me by staff). Any bullets loaded into the crossbow act as normal arrows when shot.
Click to expand...

The Court’s Objections Guide recognises a non-responsive objection where an answer does not address the question asked. Here, the question concerns what roy405 told the witness during the exchange. The disputed passage does not identify anything further that roy405 said; it introduces the witness’s present understanding of whether those statements were technically correct.

The Defence therefore asks that the three sentences quoted above be struck from the record as non-responsive, leaving the first two sentences of the witness’s answer intact.

 
jsrkiwi said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honour,

Question 6 asks, “If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?”. The witness answered that question in the first two sentences of his response. The Defence objects to the following additional passage:


The Court’s Objections Guide recognises a non-responsive objection where an answer does not address the question asked. Here, the question concerns what roy405 told the witness during the exchange. The disputed passage does not identify anything further that roy405 said; it introduces the witness’s present understanding of whether those statements were technically correct.

The Defence therefore asks that the three sentences quoted above be struck from the record as non-responsive, leaving the first two sentences of the witness’s answer intact.

Click to expand...
Overruled. This answer did address Q6, since the witness said what roy405 told them and what they recall. The extra sentences are not non-responsive, at most they are irrelevant.

I remind both parties of Rule 4.2. This Court will not rely on D-001/D-002 and the witness’s [hearsay] argument on verdict. @Y8l, you have 72 hours to provide an closing statement.
 
Your honor @Poker

I am requesting a 24 hour extension

I am free on the weekends as I would have more time to revise
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, @Poker

Following the Court's directives, here is submitted my Closing Argument representing the Plaintiff within this case involving The Forge against roy405 and PhatCat2200.

I. PROCEDURAL & EVIDENTIARY FRAMEWORK
Per prior directives from this Court alongside Rule 4.2 decisions, specific items including Defense Exhibits labeled D-001 and D-002 along with certain unverified hearsay statements were barred from being used during this trial process. Consequently, the defense lacks any valid proof to challenge what is already on file.

II. DEFAMATION
Based on common law rules regarding public trade standing and Section 1 of Part V within the RCCA framework, the Plaintiff has satisfied every allowed requirement needed to prove Defamation:.

1. False Statement of Fact: In chat, the Defendant released claims that could lead to legal action, stating the Plaintiff's goods were a "holy scammer" and creating untrue declarations regarding the armor.
2. Publication to Third Parties: Witness testimonies provided by frodo1005 and .august4496 verify that said defamation appeared on the live game server and was seen by users through global chat.
3. Quantifiable & Reputational Harm: Those remarks directly struck at the commercial standing and operational honesty of the Plaintiff, scaring away possible buyers and inflicting wrongful injury upon their enterprise.

III. UNJUST INTERFERENCE
It is evident from the proof that Defendant roy405 acted on purpose to disrupt the Plaintiff's commercial prospects and financial gain:

1. Knowledge of Business Advantage: It was understood that the Plaintiff's merchandise and retail location were accessible and being purchased regularly by users on the game server.
2. Intentional & Improper Conduct: Instead of handling the matter through normal merchant methods, the Defendant purposely posted unchecked and damaging claims inside worldwide chat, which was understood to be visible to players present during that specific moment, thereby disrupting future revenue streams and commercial prospects.
3. Proximate Cause: As set forth via witness accounts, what occurred within the game's public forums and how players perceived events was directly shaped by what the Defendants said.

The Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

1. Enter Judgment granting relief to the Plaintiff across every single count regarding both Defamation and Tortious Interference claims.

2. Grant both compensatory and punitive damages as sought within the Complaint.

3. Grant any additional remedy which this Court thinks fair or suitable.

 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT FOR THE DEFENCE

Your Honour, and may it please the Court.

The statements made by roy405 were opinion based upon a test performed on the armour by roy405. Even if they were statements of fact, they were factually correct. Regardless, the statements caused the Plaintiff no harm. Therefore, for these three reasons, there was no defamation.

The remaining claims​

1. False accusation (Criminal Code Act part III section 5) - The defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour, with invalid proof (against roy405)

4. Slander (Redmont Civil Code Act part V section 3) - The defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour, with flase and misleading accusations (against roy405)

The Plaintiff lacks personal jurisdiction re the claim of False Accusation​

Since the passage of the Redmont Civil Code Act, crimes under the Criminal Code Act cannot be pleaded in a civil lawsuit.

For precedent on this issue, see any case brought since the passage of the Redmont Civil Code Act where a Plaintiff has attempted to plead damages resulting from a crime. For example, “Crimes listed in the Criminal Code Act do not double as civil torts.” (MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 91); “There is no statute under the Redmont Criminal Code that allows for private suits.” (MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67); and “Disturbing the peace appears in the Criminal Code Act alone. It has no counterpart in the Redmont Civil Code Act” (420mss v. Sockful [2026] DCR 103).

Therefore, Your Honour ought to dismiss the claim of False Accusation.

The “slanderous” statements were opinion not fact​

Part V, §1.e of the Redmont Civil Code Act states that Defamation (and, therefore, also Slander) does not occur where “the statement is a genuinely held opinion based on disclosed facts”.

Frodo1005 testified under direct examination and cross-examination about the test that roy405 performed on the “bulletproof” armour.

frodo1005 said:
I remember roy405 wanted to test the armor. I agreed. He proceeded to shoot me with a crossbow. I felt like he's trying to kill me, rather than testing the armor, so I ran away. Then he said "bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol", "holy scammer". I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets.
Click to expand...
frodo1005 said:
3a. In P-002, did roy405 write “bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol”?
Answer: Yes

3b. Was roy405’s next message in P-002 “holy scammer”?
Answer: Yes

4. In the exchange shown in P-002, the result of roy405’s crossbow test was the reason he gave for calling you a scammer, correct?
Answer: I can only assume so,I don't remember him explicitly saying 'the reason I'm calling you a scammer is..' or something like that.

5. During that argument, did roy405 say anything to you about what could be loaded into a crossbow?
Answer: Yes

6. If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?
Answer: I remember him telling me it can be loaded with a buckshot. I don't remember him mentioning any other bullets at that time. Now I know that you can load any bullet into a crossbow including rockets and mininukes. I also now know that it is a bug and a limitation of a plugin(confirmed to me by staff). Any bullets loaded into the crossbow act as normal arrows when shot.
Click to expand...

Only after shooting at frodo1005 with a crossbow (loaded with buckshot) and only after seeing that frodo1005 had suffered injury, did roy405 make the statement “bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol” and then “holy scammer”.

This is a disclosure of the facts (“bro went down in 3 crossbow shots”) followed by roy405’s conclusion/opinion “holy scammer”. Any reasonable person reading global chat at that time would have seen the disclosed facts on which roy405’s conclusion was based.

Furthermore, frodo1005 understood that “holy scammer” was roy405’s opinion. He had the opportunity to refute it, and he did, stating in global chat “not bullets my guy” and “try a shotgun” (P-002). This provided additional facts which any reasonable reader was able to read and consider whether this changed their mind about roy405’s opinion.

I note that the exact facts about whether the bow fires buckshot or arrows remains unproven. However, this is irrelevant, despite the Plaintiff attempting to make it so. In roy405’s stated fact “bro went down in 3 crossbow shots”, he stated “crossbow” not “shotgun”. There was no mis-representation of facts by roy405 at any point.

The armour is not bulletproof​

In order for Your Honour to find in favour of the Plaintiff on either of the remaining claims, Your Honour must first find that the “bulletproof” armour is indeed bulletproof. Without this, the falsity element of both claims falls.

The Plaintiff has presented no evidence whatsoever concerning the “bulletproof” armour. He could have introduced screenshots showing the armour, he chose not to do so. He could have asked frodo1005 what the armour was made from, or what enchantments it had, he chose not to do so.

The only evidence concerning the armour came to light during cross-examination. Frodo1005 admitted that since the incident, The Forge’s stores now display signs headed “Disclaimer”, which state “it's resistant to most bullets”. If the armour is only “resistant to most bullets”, then by definition it is not bulletproof.

Part III, §2.1.a and §3.1.a of the Judicial Standards Act makes it clear that the burden of proof in civil cases is borne by the Plaintiff, who must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. By choosing not to provide any evidence of the armour actually being bulletproof, the Plaintiff has clearly failed to meet his burden of proof.

The Plaintiff must prove actual harm​

The requirement to prove actual damages in cases of alleged defamation is an ancient one, that goes all the way back to Defamation at Common Law. This precedent has applied continuously through to the current day, as the definition of Defamation has continued to include the element “that injures a third party’s reputation”.

This is articulated repeatedly over the years in e.g. bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63 “the statement must have caused damage”; and Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 “The court has not been presented with any evidence of harm claimed by the plaintiff […] Therefore, the defendant’s statement did not constitute slander”.

This is perhaps best articulated in jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90, where His Honour Magistrate dearev stated “other people hearing this false statement does NOT fulfil the 3rd test "The statement has to cause reputational harm".” His Honour, being faced with insufficient evidence of harm, said that He “does not belive that only because the statement was heard the individual which heard said statement belived in its factuallity and as so, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the person in which heard the statement belived it as true.”

The Plaintiff did not suffer any harm​

In order for Your Honour to find in favour of the Plaintiff on the Slander claim, Your Honour must find that the Plaintiff suffered actual harm from roy405’s statements. Falsity is not sufficient (see previous section).

The Plaintiff has provided no evidence whatsoever in support of his claim to have suffered harm. He could have introduced sales records, but he chose to not do so. He could have called any of his hypothetical “dissuaded customers” to testify, but he chose to not do so.

frodo1005 said:
At the time I'm writing this I have 3 locations selling the bulletproof armor.
Click to expand...

Under cross-examination, frodo1005 stated that The Forge currently operates three stores. It would be reasonable for Your Honour to infer that a business that continues to operate three stores did not suffer any actual harm.

Part III, §2.1.a and §3.1.a of the Judicial Standards Act makes it clear that the burden of proof in civil cases is borne by the Plaintiff, who must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. By choosing not to provide any evidence of having suffered harm, the Plaintiff has clearly failed to meet his burden of proof.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s reluctance to introduce evidence of harm, and decision not to call any of the “dissuaded customers” who he claims exist, should give rise to a negative inference. It is right to infer that no actual identifiable harm was suffered by the Plaintiff, or else he would have been able to provide evidence of this.

What in the ChatGPT-5.6 Sol? Plaintiff’s closing is riddled with errors​

It seems that the LLM lawyer has struck once again Your Honour.

.august4496 was ultimately not called as a witness and answered no questions. And yet the Plaintiff makes reference to fictional testimony by “august4496 verify that said defamation appeared on the live game server and was seen by users through global chat”.

The Plaintiff’s closing argument also claims “quantifiable and reputational harm”, but provides no evidentiary basis for asserting quantified harm.

The Plaintiff’s closing argument includes claims of unjust interference with what appears to be wild assertions of actual malice, neither of which have ever been argued or pleaded in this case.

There is a reference to events occurring on the forums: “what occurred within the game's public forums […] was directly shaped by what the Defendants said.” The Plaintiff did not introduce any evidence of anything occurring on the forums. The Defence suspects that this is likely an AI hallucination from misunderstanding that the case is filed and heard on the forums.

Given that the Bar Association has already disciplined Y8L for using artificial intelligence earlier in this case, I would respectfully ask that Your Honour consider Contempt of Court or a further referral to the Bar Association.

Quick note: Who even is the Plaintiff?​

The Plaintiff is listed as The Forge, an unincorporated business operated by frodo1005 at the time of filing. Incorporation of The Forge LLC was approved on 17 August 2026, after this case was filed (8 August 2026). The company docket erroneously states that this case is ongoing against the Company, despite the Company not existing at that time.

Since The Forge was not a corporate person until part-way through the case, the Defendant therefore makes two assumptions:
1. that the entire going concern of The Forge was transferred to The Forge LLC at the time of its incorporation; and
2. that the Plaintiff in this case is frodo1005.

Conclusion: Dismissal is the only available outcome​

It is clear from the evidence (and, where relevant, lack thereof) that Slander never took place.

Firstly, roy405 made an opinionated conclusion based on facts that he publicly disclosed.

Secondly, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that the armour is “bulletproof”, and indeed his stores display signs which disclaim such a bold assertion.

Third, The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of actually having suffered harm from roy405’s statements. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer the opposite.

Therefore, the Defence asks Your Honour to dismiss the case and award legal fees of $3,000 against the Plaintiff.

 
This Court will treat the paragraph "What in the ChatGPT-5.6 Sol? Plaintiff’s closing is riddled with errors" as a breach of procedure and perjury objection. Court is in recess pending a verdict.

This may take some time, as I'm buried on university classes and I want to review every precedent mentioned in this case.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

While reviewing this docket, this Court found that Counselor Y8l did not abide by this Court's orders and procedures during this case. During Pré-Trial, in Post #16 and Post #29 Counselor breached Court Rules and Procedure. He was warned that further breaches would lead to Contempt of Court charges in Post #31. Disregarding this order, he posted Post #32. This led to his first Contempt of Court in this case, in addition to a Conduct Strike for the blatant conduct.

Continuing, in Post #41, his Amended Complaint, Counselor further breached Rule 4.1 and Rule 3.5 by editing facts and evidence, this led to a Contempt of Court charge. In discovery, in Post #76, Plaintiff's opening statement, Counselor failed to comply with Rule 1.10, as he did not hyperlink his citations. This Court ignored it, because it could harm Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. The same happened in Post #80, his response to Motion to Dismiss from Ex-Defendant Phatcat2200, and Post #89, a Motion to Dismiss from Defendant Roy405.

Counselor was asked, again, to hyperlink his citations in Post #81 and ordered to comply with Court Rules in Post #105. However, in his Closing Statements, Counselor still did not comply with the procedures. In total, this Court ordered Counselor to comply with Rules three times. This is a direct violation of this Court's explicit orders and a clear demonstration of disrespect toward judicial authority.

While this Court is considering issuing a Conduct Strike for these actions, it will afford Counselor an opportunity to be heard prior to any order. Counselor @Y8l is hereby ordered to show cause within 48 hours why a Conduct Strike should not be issued.
​

 
Your Honour, @Poker,

I admit that I failed to follow the Court Rules and Procedures when those matters were Disclosed by the Court. In my Opening Statement and Closing Statement, I failed to create hyperlinks for my citations, even though Post #105 contained specific instructions from the Court regarding that requirement. Furthermore, I submitted the revised set of questions directed at witnesses following the established deadline noted in Post #105. The heavy burden caused by my exams serves as no valid justification; instead, I wish that I had asked for a time extension sooner, which aligns with what the Court had previously recommended.

I Politely request the Court go against issuing a Conduct Strike. And I ask the Court to consider a formal warning, since I have admitted the breaches and do not contest the Court's findings. I promise to hyperlink every citation and to seek any extension prior to a deadline expiring, instead of afterward unlike these times.

I also wish to deal with the defence's accusation about me using AI which was not so.I wrote that closing statement myself. Mistakes found on #129 belong to me, and I take ownership of them.

Thank you for the Court’s time and patience and sorry for the mess that I have caused during this trial.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
CONTEMPT OF COURT

I. First Contempt of Court
Defendant, In his Closing Statements, Objects that the Plaintiff's closing statements were "riddled with errors" (seem below) and argues that the document was made it AI. In his Defense, Counselor says that he wrote such statements himself, and takes the blame for the mistake.

I.I First Objection​
".august4496 was ultimately not called as a witness and answered no questions. And yet the Plaintiff makes reference to fictional testimony by “august4496 verify that said defamation appeared on the live game server and was seen by users through global chat”​
Click to expand...
Sustained. It will be stricked.

I.II Second Objection and Third Objection​
The Plaintiff’s closing argument also claims “quantifiable and reputational harm”, but provides no evidentiary basis for asserting quantified harm.


The Plaintiff’s closing argument includes claims of unjust interference with what appears to be wild assertions of actual malice, neither of which have ever been argued or pleaded in this case.​
Click to expand...
Overruled. These are poorly written arguments. They shall be reviewed only in verdict.

I.III Fourth Objection​
There is a reference to events occurring on the forums: “what occurred within the game's public forums […] was directly shaped by what the Defendants said.” The Plaintiff did not introduce any evidence of anything occurring on the forums. The Defence suspects that this is likely an AI hallucination from misunderstanding that the case is filed and heard on the forums.​
Click to expand...
Sustained. It will be stricked.

I.IV Court Order

I.IV.I Contempt of Court
Counselor Y8L submitted unsupported factual assertions. He first states that .august4496 "verify that said defamation appeared on the live game server and was seen by users through global chat" and further states that "what occurred within the game's public forums (...) was directly shaped by what the Defendants said". None of those affirmations are supported by evidence or testimony.

Introducing unproven narratives burdens judicial activity and jeopardizes the effectiveness of the judicial ruling. Thereby, I find Counselor Y8l in Contempt of Court, as in CCA, for engaging in such reckless conduct that interfered with the administration of justice. He shall be fined 20 PUs.

I.IV.II Conduct Strike
While the misuse of AI has not been proven, it's the Court opinion that the appearance of it is sufficient to adversely reflect on the legal profession. For this, the Court emphasizes the followings facts:

1) "Content Substantially Generated with Artifical Intelligence" Staff Team tag on Post #69/#80.
2) AI signature on others posts confirmed by the BAR Association of Redmont (e.g. #16, #44, #66).
3) Factual confusion on Closing Statements of recent events (4 days between closing statements and witness testimony).

Such factual findings generate the appearance that the discussed draft has been generated by AI. Indisputably, AI misuse, or the appearance of it, reflects adversely on the entire legal profession, it diminishes community trust on the legal profession as a whole and degrade court proceedings. Thereby, I issue a conduct strike under JSA.

II. Second Contempt of Court
In Post #135, the Counselor was ordered to show cause regarding his multiple violations of this Court’s Rules and Procedures. In his Defense, he admits that he failed to follow the Procedures, but request the Court to consider a formal warning, because he confessed to the violations.

Pursuant to JSA, Part VII, 1(2), a Judicial Officer must not issue a conduct strike unless satisfied that the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession. As such, this Court must determine whether the Counselor conduct meet this threshold, considering the nature of the violations, as well as his admission thereof.

In MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, Honorable Ex-Judge Superwoops issued a Conduct Strike against Attorney MMiqa for providing four unprovoked statements. In his Ruling, Ex-Judge Superwoops explained
​
I additionally find that these breaches of an order from the Court are grave enough to warrant a conduct strike as:
[1]- Such disobediences of a court order is a serious offense, especially when done four separate times, and;
[2]- Such disobediences also hinder the proper administration of justice and bloat this Court with senseless filings, and;
[3]- Such disobediences, which are repeated and interfere with the administration of justice and the sanctity of this Court's procedures, reflect negatively on the legal profession as a whole.​
Click to expand...

This Court finds several similarities between the aforementioned case and the present one.

1. Although the violations in the present case may be less serious than making repeated unprovoked statements, the Court finds that the Counselor's breaches occurred on multiple times in a pattern of noncompliance.

2. Such repeated violations not only hinder the administration of justice but also undermine the Court’s authority to enforce its own Rules and Procedures. Tolerating such conduct without an response would risk the impression that the District Court’s orders may be disregarded without meaningful consequences, thereby diminishing respect for the judicial process and reflecting adversely on the legal profession.

3. As explained in 2, the disobedience interferes with the sanctity of this Court's procedures.

While the admission on his defense is a mitigating circumstance, this Court, as in the above analysis, stills finds that the Counselor's conduct reflects adversely on the legal profession. Thereby, I find Counselor @Y8l guilty of Contempt of Court, as in CCA, for disobeying, multiple times, lawful orders of the Court. He shall be fined 20 PUs. I further issue another Conduct Strike under JSA.

III. Suspension
As Counselor @Y8l has accumulated three Conduct Strikes within a period of three months, I declare him suspended and temporally disbarred for a month. He shall lose the power to advise clients, represent a party in court, and file cases on a client’s behalf. He also shall withdraw themselves from any case in which they are representing another client (JSA, Part VII, 2).​

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top