Lawsuit: Pending 1ILight vs coslos [2026] DCR 180

[William0324]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

1lLight, Plaintiff
v.
coslos, Defendant

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's Counsel: Blueshadow0324, Solicitor
Date: September 29, 2026

---

I. PARTIES​

1. The Plaintiff is 1lLight, a member of the DemocracyCraft community and a member of the group known as the Communist Workers Company (CWC).
2. The Defendant is coslos, a member of the DemocracyCraft community who participated in the Discord discussion giving rise to this action.
3. The Plaintiff is represented in this matter by Blueshadow0324, Solicitor.

---

II. JURISDICTION​

1. This action arises from communications made within the DemocracyCraft community and concerns alleged violations of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The alleged statements were communicated through a Discord thread associated with the DemocracyCraft server.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over civil disputes arising under the applicable laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

---

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS​

1. At the time of the events described herein, the Plaintiff was a member of the Communist Workers Company (CWC).
2. During a Discord discussion on the DemocracyCraft server, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff was not part of the CWC.
3. The Defendant additionally posted an image containing a gay pride flag in connection with the statement that the Plaintiff was allegedly not part of the team.
4. The accompanying message stated, in substance, “bro think he part of the team”, followed by crying emojis and a gay pride flag.
5. The Plaintiff does not identify as gay.
6. The Defendant additionally stated: “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.”
7. The statements and accompanying imagery were communicated in a Discord thread associated with the DemocracyCraft server.
8. Approximately five individuals, including the Plaintiff and Defendant, were involved or present in the relevant discussion.
9. The Discord thread was accessible through the wider DemocracyCraft server, which had approximately 1,700 or more members at the relevant time.
10. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements and accompanying imagery caused reputational harm to the Plaintiff, including harm to the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC.
11. The Plaintiff further alleges that the manner in which the statements and imagery were communicated contributed to the Plaintiff being publicly demeaned within the relevant community.

---

IV. PUBLICATION AND COMMUNICATION​

1. The Defendant communicated the statements at issue through a Discord thread rather than privately to the Plaintiff.
2. The communications were therefore capable of being viewed by individuals other than the Plaintiff.
3. Approximately five individuals were involved or present in the relevant discussion, including the Plaintiff and Defendant.
4. The relevant Discord thread was also accessible to the wider DemocracyCraft server community.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that the publication of the statements to third parties contributed to the reputational harm alleged in this Complaint.

---

V. EVIDENCE​

1. P-001 consists of an image showing the Defendant's communication concerning the Plaintiff's alleged membership in the CWC together with the accompanying imagery containing a gay pride flag.
2. P-002 consists of an image showing the Defendant's additional statement concerning the Plaintiff allegedly being sent to a gulag.
3. P-003 consists of the complete Discord thread containing the relevant discussion and surrounding context.
4. The Plaintiff may rely upon the above evidence to establish the content, context, publication, and circumstances of the Defendant's communications.

---

VI. INJURY AND HARM​

1. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements caused injury to the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC.
2. The Plaintiff alleges that the communications were viewed by individuals other than the Plaintiff and therefore had the potential to affect how the Plaintiff was perceived by members of the relevant community.
3. The Plaintiff further alleges that the combination of the statements and accompanying imagery subjected the Plaintiff to public ridicule and reputational harm.
4. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the injury allegedly caused by the Defendant's conduct.

---

VII. COUNT I — DEFAMATION​

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
2. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §1 provides the applicable prohibition concerning defamation.
3. The Defendant communicated statements concerning the Plaintiff's membership in the CWC.
4. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements were false.
5. The statements were communicated to individuals other than the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff alleges that the communications were capable of causing injury to the Plaintiff's reputation.
7. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements were communicated in a manner capable of being understood as assertions concerning the Plaintiff rather than solely as private expressions of opinion.
8. The Plaintiff therefore brings this Count for defamation under the applicable provisions of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

---

VIII. COUNT II — SLANDER​

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
2. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §3 provides the applicable prohibition concerning slander.
3. The Defendant communicated the alleged defamatory statements through a Discord discussion associated with the DemocracyCraft community.
4. The communications were accessible to individuals other than the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that the communications concerned the Plaintiff and were capable of damaging the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community.
6. The Plaintiff further alleges that the statements and accompanying imagery were used in a manner that publicly demeaned the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff therefore brings this Count for slander under the applicable provisions of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

---

IX. APPLICABLE LAW​

1. Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §1 — Defamation.
2. Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §3 — Slander.
3. Redmont Civil Code Act, Part II, §9 — Intentional Violations, to the extent applicable to the Defendant's conduct.
4. The Plaintiff relies upon the foregoing provisions as the legal basis for the claims asserted in this Complaint.

---

X. DAMAGES AND RELIEF​

1. The Plaintiff seeks DC$2,500 in damages for the reputational harm, humiliation, and other injury allegedly caused by the Defendant's conduct.
2. The requested damages reflect the Plaintiff's alleged reputational injury within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community.
3. The Plaintiff seeks a public retraction of the statements at issue through the same Discord medium in which they were published.
4. The Plaintiff further seeks any other relief that this Court determines to be legally available and appropriate under the applicable law.

---

XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Find that the Defendant's conduct violated the applicable provisions of the Redmont Civil Code Act;
2. Award the Plaintiff DC$2,500 in damages;
3. Order the Defendant to issue a public retraction of the statements at issue;
4. Recognize the reputational harm allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community; and
5. Grant such other relief as the Court determines to be legally available and appropriate.

---

Respectfully submitted,

Blueshadow0324
Solicitor for Plaintiff 1lLight

Date: September 29, 2026

 

[Johnes]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

1lLight, Plaintiff
v.
coslos, Defendant

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's Counsel: Blueshadow0324, Solicitor
Date: September 29, 2026

---

I. PARTIES​

1. The Plaintiff is 1lLight, a member of the DemocracyCraft community and a member of the group known as the Communist Workers Company (CWC).
2. The Defendant is coslos, a member of the DemocracyCraft community who participated in the Discord discussion giving rise to this action.
3. The Plaintiff is represented in this matter by Blueshadow0324, Solicitor.

---

II. JURISDICTION​

1. This action arises from communications made within the DemocracyCraft community and concerns alleged violations of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The alleged statements were communicated through a Discord thread associated with the DemocracyCraft server.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over civil disputes arising under the applicable laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

---

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS​

1. At the time of the events described herein, the Plaintiff was a member of the Communist Workers Company (CWC).
2. During a Discord discussion on the DemocracyCraft server, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff was not part of the CWC.
3. The Defendant additionally posted an image containing a gay pride flag in connection with the statement that the Plaintiff was allegedly not part of the team.
4. The accompanying message stated, in substance, “bro think he part of the team”, followed by crying emojis and a gay pride flag.
5. The Plaintiff does not identify as gay.
6. The Defendant additionally stated: “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.”
7. The statements and accompanying imagery were communicated in a Discord thread associated with the DemocracyCraft server.
8. Approximately five individuals, including the Plaintiff and Defendant, were involved or present in the relevant discussion.
9. The Discord thread was accessible through the wider DemocracyCraft server, which had approximately 1,700 or more members at the relevant time.
10. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements and accompanying imagery caused reputational harm to the Plaintiff, including harm to the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC.
11. The Plaintiff further alleges that the manner in which the statements and imagery were communicated contributed to the Plaintiff being publicly demeaned within the relevant community.

---

IV. PUBLICATION AND COMMUNICATION​

1. The Defendant communicated the statements at issue through a Discord thread rather than privately to the Plaintiff.
2. The communications were therefore capable of being viewed by individuals other than the Plaintiff.
3. Approximately five individuals were involved or present in the relevant discussion, including the Plaintiff and Defendant.
4. The relevant Discord thread was also accessible to the wider DemocracyCraft server community.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that the publication of the statements to third parties contributed to the reputational harm alleged in this Complaint.

---

V. EVIDENCE​

1. P-001 consists of an image showing the Defendant's communication concerning the Plaintiff's alleged membership in the CWC together with the accompanying imagery containing a gay pride flag.
2. P-002 consists of an image showing the Defendant's additional statement concerning the Plaintiff allegedly being sent to a gulag.
3. P-003 consists of the complete Discord thread containing the relevant discussion and surrounding context.
4. The Plaintiff may rely upon the above evidence to establish the content, context, publication, and circumstances of the Defendant's communications.

---

VI. INJURY AND HARM​

1. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements caused injury to the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC.
2. The Plaintiff alleges that the communications were viewed by individuals other than the Plaintiff and therefore had the potential to affect how the Plaintiff was perceived by members of the relevant community.
3. The Plaintiff further alleges that the combination of the statements and accompanying imagery subjected the Plaintiff to public ridicule and reputational harm.
4. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the injury allegedly caused by the Defendant's conduct.

---

VII. COUNT I — DEFAMATION​

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
2. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §1 provides the applicable prohibition concerning defamation.
3. The Defendant communicated statements concerning the Plaintiff's membership in the CWC.
4. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements were false.
5. The statements were communicated to individuals other than the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff alleges that the communications were capable of causing injury to the Plaintiff's reputation.
7. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements were communicated in a manner capable of being understood as assertions concerning the Plaintiff rather than solely as private expressions of opinion.
8. The Plaintiff therefore brings this Count for defamation under the applicable provisions of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

---

VIII. COUNT II — SLANDER​

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
2. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §3 provides the applicable prohibition concerning slander.
3. The Defendant communicated the alleged defamatory statements through a Discord discussion associated with the DemocracyCraft community.
4. The communications were accessible to individuals other than the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that the communications concerned the Plaintiff and were capable of damaging the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community.
6. The Plaintiff further alleges that the statements and accompanying imagery were used in a manner that publicly demeaned the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff therefore brings this Count for slander under the applicable provisions of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

---

IX. APPLICABLE LAW​

1. Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §1 — Defamation.
2. Redmont Civil Code Act, Part V, §3 — Slander.
3. Redmont Civil Code Act, Part II, §9 — Intentional Violations, to the extent applicable to the Defendant's conduct.
4. The Plaintiff relies upon the foregoing provisions as the legal basis for the claims asserted in this Complaint.

---

X. DAMAGES AND RELIEF​

1. The Plaintiff seeks DC$2,500 in damages for the reputational harm, humiliation, and other injury allegedly caused by the Defendant's conduct.
2. The requested damages reflect the Plaintiff's alleged reputational injury within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community.
3. The Plaintiff seeks a public retraction of the statements at issue through the same Discord medium in which they were published.
4. The Plaintiff further seeks any other relief that this Court determines to be legally available and appropriate under the applicable law.

---

XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Find that the Defendant's conduct violated the applicable provisions of the Redmont Civil Code Act;
2. Award the Plaintiff DC$2,500 in damages;
3. Order the Defendant to issue a public retraction of the statements at issue;
4. Recognize the reputational harm allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community; and
5. Grant such other relief as the Court determines to be legally available and appropriate.

---

Respectfully submitted,

Blueshadow0324
Solicitor for Plaintiff 1lLight

Date: September 29, 2026

Where's your evidence?

 

[William0324]

Sorry you're honor.

 

[Johnes]

Sorry you're honor.

I'm honor indeed.

I do not understand §§ II, IV, V, X, XI of your complaint. Please amend your complaint to follow the template, 48 hours to do so.

 

[William0324]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

CIVIL ACTION​

1lLight
Plaintiff

v.

coslos
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​

I. PARTIES​

1. The Plaintiff is 1lLight, a member of the DemocracyCraft community and a member of the Communist Workers Company (CWC).
2. The Defendant is coslos, a member of the DemocracyCraft community and the person who made the statements described below.
3. The Plaintiff is represented by Blueshadow0324, Solicitor.

II. FACTS​

1. The Plaintiff was a member of the Communist Workers Company (CWC) at the time of the events giving rise to this complaint.
2. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff was not part of the CWC.
3. The Defendant posted an image containing a gay pride flag together with wording stating, in substance, “bro think he part of the team”, accompanied by crying emojis and the gay pride flag.
4. The Plaintiff does not identify as gay.
5. The Defendant additionally stated: “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.”
6. The statements were made in a Discord thread associated with the DemocracyCraft server.
7. Approximately five people, including the Plaintiff and Defendant, were involved or present in the relevant discussion.
8. The Discord thread was accessible to the wider DemocracyCraft server community, which had approximately 1,700 or more members at the relevant time.
9. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements were communicated to people other than the Plaintiff and caused harm to the Plaintiff's reputation.
10. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements caused reputational harm within the Communist Workers Company.
11. The Plaintiff further alleges that the accompanying imagery and wording publicly demeaned the Plaintiff in the relevant discussion.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. The Plaintiff brings a claim for Defamation under Part V, §1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The Defendant made statements concerning the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's membership in the CWC.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that the statement that the Plaintiff was not part of the CWC was false.
4. The Defendant communicated the statement to persons other than the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that the communication harmed the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community.
6. The Plaintiff also brings a claim for Slander under Part V, §3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
7. The statements were communicated through a Discord discussion and were capable of being viewed by persons other than the Plaintiff.
8. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements and accompanying imagery were communicated in a manner that damaged the Plaintiff's reputation.
9. The Plaintiff further relies upon Part II, §9 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, to the extent that the provision applies to the Defendant's conduct.
10. The Plaintiff seeks relief for the alleged violations described above.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. DC$2,500 in damages for the reputational harm and other injury alleged to have resulted from the Defendant's conduct.
2. An order requiring the Defendant to issue a public retraction of the statements at issue.
3. Any other relief that the Court determines to be legally available and appropriate.

EVIDENCE​

P-001: Image showing the Defendant's statement concerning the Plaintiff's alleged membership in the CWC and the accompanying image containing the gay pride flag.

P-002: Image showing the Defendant's statement concerning the Plaintiff allegedly being sent to a gulag.

P-003: The complete Discord thread containing the relevant discussion and surrounding context.

WITNESSES​

1. 1lLight — Plaintiff and participant in the relevant Discord discussion.
2. coslos — Defendant and author of the statements at issue.
3. The other participants in the relevant Discord discussion may provide evidence concerning the statements, their context, and their publication.

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

DATED: This 29th day of September, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

Blueshadow0324
Solicitor for Plaintiff 1lLight

 

[Johnes]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

CIVIL ACTION​

1lLight
Plaintiff

v.

coslos
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​

I. PARTIES​

1. The Plaintiff is 1lLight, a member of the DemocracyCraft community and a member of the Communist Workers Company (CWC).
2. The Defendant is coslos, a member of the DemocracyCraft community and the person who made the statements described below.
3. The Plaintiff is represented by Blueshadow0324, Solicitor.

II. FACTS​

1. The Plaintiff was a member of the Communist Workers Company (CWC) at the time of the events giving rise to this complaint.
2. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff was not part of the CWC.
3. The Defendant posted an image containing a gay pride flag together with wording stating, in substance, “bro think he part of the team”, accompanied by crying emojis and the gay pride flag.
4. The Plaintiff does not identify as gay.
5. The Defendant additionally stated: “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.”
6. The statements were made in a Discord thread associated with the DemocracyCraft server.
7. Approximately five people, including the Plaintiff and Defendant, were involved or present in the relevant discussion.
8. The Discord thread was accessible to the wider DemocracyCraft server community, which had approximately 1,700 or more members at the relevant time.
9. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's statements were communicated to people other than the Plaintiff and caused harm to the Plaintiff's reputation.
10. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements caused reputational harm within the Communist Workers Company.
11. The Plaintiff further alleges that the accompanying imagery and wording publicly demeaned the Plaintiff in the relevant discussion.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. The Plaintiff brings a claim for Defamation under Part V, §1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The Defendant made statements concerning the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's membership in the CWC.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that the statement that the Plaintiff was not part of the CWC was false.
4. The Defendant communicated the statement to persons other than the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that the communication harmed the Plaintiff's reputation within the CWC and the wider DemocracyCraft community.
6. The Plaintiff also brings a claim for Slander under Part V, §3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
7. The statements were communicated through a Discord discussion and were capable of being viewed by persons other than the Plaintiff.
8. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements and accompanying imagery were communicated in a manner that damaged the Plaintiff's reputation.
9. The Plaintiff further relies upon Part II, §9 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, to the extent that the provision applies to the Defendant's conduct.
10. The Plaintiff seeks relief for the alleged violations described above.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. DC$2,500 in damages for the reputational harm and other injury alleged to have resulted from the Defendant's conduct.
2. An order requiring the Defendant to issue a public retraction of the statements at issue.
3. Any other relief that the Court determines to be legally available and appropriate.

EVIDENCE​

P-001: Image showing the Defendant's statement concerning the Plaintiff's alleged membership in the CWC and the accompanying image containing the gay pride flag.

P-002: Image showing the Defendant's statement concerning the Plaintiff allegedly being sent to a gulag.

P-003: The complete Discord thread containing the relevant discussion and surrounding context.

WITNESSES​

1. 1lLight — Plaintiff and participant in the relevant Discord discussion.
2. coslos — Defendant and author of the statements at issue.
3. The other participants in the relevant Discord discussion may provide evidence concerning the statements, their context, and their publication.

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

DATED: This 29th day of September, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

Blueshadow0324
Solicitor for Plaintiff 1lLight

What exact damages are you seeking? The Court does not understand the exact types of damages you seek or their basis in law.

 

[Johnes]

Original filing stricken.

 

[William0324]

My client is seaking DC$2,500 in damages for the reputational harm and other injury alleged to have resulted from the Defendant's conduct.

You're Honor.

 

[Johnes]

My client is seaking DC$2,500 in damages for the reputational harm and other injury alleged to have resulted from the Defendant's conduct.

You're Honor.

What type of monetary damages are you seeking? The Court does not recognize the non-specific damages Plaintiff requests.

 

[William0324]

Consequential Damages you're Honor.

 

[William0324]

Sorry your're honor I also want to note that I should be "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT" of course, I followed the template.

 

[William0324]

Evidence of Representation. You're Honor.

 

[Johnes]

Writ of Summons

@coslos is required to appear before the District Court in the case of 1ILight vs coslos [2026] DCR 180.

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.

 

[coslos]

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint​

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

1lLight
Plaintiff

v.

coslos
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence AFFIRMS fact 1 in the complaint.
2. The defence DENIES fact 2 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
3. The defence AFFIRMS fact 3 in the complaint.
4. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 4 in the complaint.
5. The defence AFFIRMS fact 5 in the complaint.
6. The defence AFFIRMS fact 6 in the complaint.
7. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 7 in the complaint.
8. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 8 in the complaint.
9. The defence DENIES fact 9 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
10. The defence AFFIRMS fact 10 in the complaint. While the defence knows the statement was made and affirms it, they think that the allegations (if submitted as a fact) would get denied.
11. The defence AFFIRMS fact 11 in the complaint. Same as answer 10.

II. DEFENCES
1. The defendant did not notice the pride flag in the GIF, this is a misunderstanding that was no intentional and that they are sorry for not noticing.
2. The defendant used it after the plaintiff joined the conversation with no prior contacts with the defendant, confused the defendant searched up "who invited bro" in discord GIF searcher as a way of showing that confusion. They again, did not notice the pride flag.
3. The plaintiff asked "Hey You made me gay ?". To which the defendant responded with "heh? th is going on?", clearly confused by his statement. Still not aware of the GIF's content.
4. The defendant also stated “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.” in a reference to common usual communist anti-homosexual policies.
5. The defendant clearly did not mean to hurt the plaintiffs reputation nor has the plaintiff delivered evidence showing any harm suffered as a result of those statements.
6. In conclusion the defendant's statements were not intentional as shown in the conversation shown in(P-002)
and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff funds or reputation.

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 thirtieth(30th) day of September 2026

 

[Johnes]

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint​

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

1lLight
Plaintiff

v.

coslos
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence AFFIRMS fact 1 in the complaint.
2. The defence DENIES fact 2 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
3. The defence AFFIRMS fact 3 in the complaint.
4. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 4 in the complaint.
5. The defence AFFIRMS fact 5 in the complaint.
6. The defence AFFIRMS fact 6 in the complaint.
7. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 7 in the complaint.
8. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 8 in the complaint.
9. The defence DENIES fact 9 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
10. The defence AFFIRMS fact 10 in the complaint.
11. The defence AFFIRMS fact 11 in the complaint.

II. DEFENCES
1. The defendant did not notice the pride flag in the GIF, this is a misunderstanding that was no intentional and that they are sorry for not noticing.
2. The defendant used it after the plaintiff joined the conversation with no prior contacts with the defendant, confused the defendant searched up "who invited bro" in discord GIF searcher as a way of showing that confusion. They again, did not notice the pride flag.
3. The plaintiff asked "Hey You made me gay ?". To which the defendant responded with "heh? th is going on?", clearly confused by his statement. Still not aware of the GIF's content.
4. The defendant also stated “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.” in a reference to common usual communist anti-homosexual policies.
5. The defendant clearly did not mean to hurt the plaintiffs reputation nor has the plaintiff delivered evidence showing any harm suffered as a result of those statements.
6. In conclusion the defendant's statements were not intentional as shown in the conversation shown in(P-002)
and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff funds or reputation.

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 thirtieth(30th) day of September 2026

Thank you for appearing and for posting an answer.

Discovery shall be open for 5 days from now.

 

[William0324]

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint​

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

1lLight
Plaintiff

v.

coslos
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence AFFIRMS fact 1 in the complaint.
2. The defence DENIES fact 2 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
3. The defence AFFIRMS fact 3 in the complaint.
4. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 4 in the complaint.
5. The defence AFFIRMS fact 5 in the complaint.
6. The defence AFFIRMS fact 6 in the complaint.
7. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 7 in the complaint.
8. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 8 in the complaint.
9. The defence DENIES fact 9 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
10. The defence AFFIRMS fact 10 in the complaint.
11. The defence AFFIRMS fact 11 in the complaint.

II. DEFENCES
1. The defendant did not notice the pride flag in the GIF, this is a misunderstanding that was no intentional and that they are sorry for not noticing.
2. The defendant used it after the plaintiff joined the conversation with no prior contacts with the defendant, confused the defendant searched up "who invited bro" in discord GIF searcher as a way of showing that confusion. They again, did not notice the pride flag.
3. The plaintiff asked "Hey You made me gay ?". To which the defendant responded with "heh? th is going on?", clearly confused by his statement. Still not aware of the GIF's content.
4. The defendant also stated “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.” in a reference to common usual communist anti-homosexual policies.
5. The defendant clearly did not mean to hurt the plaintiffs reputation nor has the plaintiff delivered evidence showing any harm suffered as a result of those statements.
6. In conclusion the defendant's statements were not intentional as shown in the conversation shown in(P-002)
and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff funds or reputation.

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 thirtieth(30th) day of September 2026

​

Objection

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Assumes facts not in evidence
Your Honor,

In the defense line 6: "shown in the conversation shown in (P-002)
and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff's funds or reputation." The defense is assuming the fact that my client did not suffer any harm to reputation. The plaintiff therefore asks the court to discount line 6 in defense about reputation. We do not object to the financial harm.

 

[William0324]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Speculation
Your Honor,

Your Honor, in Defendant's Defence, paragraph 1, the Defendant states that they did not notice the pride flag and that the misunderstanding was not intentional. The Plaintiff objects to these statements as speculation because the Defendant is asking the Court to accept their claimed state of mind without supporting evidence. The Plaintiff asks the Court to consider these statements only to the extent that they are supported by the evidence.

 

[coslos]

​

Objection

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Assumes facts not in evidence
Your Honor,

In the defense line 6: "shown in the conversation shown in (P-002)
and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff's funds or reputation." The defense is assuming the fact that my client did not suffer any harm to reputation. The plaintiff therefore asks the court to discount line 6 in defense about reputation. We do not object to the financial harm.

The plaintiff didn't provide evidence proving any harm or even that anyone saw the post. Actually, the plaintiff assumes facts not in evidence not proving any harm at all. Therefore the defence asks for this objection to be overruled.

 

[coslos]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Speculation
Your Honor,

Your Honor, in Defendant's Defence, paragraph 1, the Defendant states that they did not notice the pride flag and that the misunderstanding was not intentional. The Plaintiff objects to these statements as speculation because the Defendant is asking the Court to accept their claimed state of mind without supporting evidence. The Plaintiff asks the Court to consider these statements only to the extent that they are supported by the evidence.

The defendant's intentions to harm the plaintiff are not proven in the evidence. Therefore the defence asks for this objection to be overruled.

 

[coslos]

The defence would like to end discovery early. Does the plaintiff consent?

 

[Johnes]

​

Objection

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Assumes facts not in evidence
Your Honor,

In the defense line 6: "shown in the conversation shown in (P-002)
and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff's funds or reputation." The defense is assuming the fact that my client did not suffer any harm to reputation. The plaintiff therefore asks the court to discount line 6 in defense about reputation. We do not object to the financial harm.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Speculation
Your Honor,

Your Honor, in Defendant's Defence, paragraph 1, the Defendant states that they did not notice the pride flag and that the misunderstanding was not intentional. The Plaintiff objects to these statements as speculation because the Defendant is asking the Court to accept their claimed state of mind without supporting evidence. The Plaintiff asks the Court to consider these statements only to the extent that they are supported by the evidence.

Both are overruled.

Plaintiff objects to two arguments made by Defendant. Due to argumentation being inherently at odds, the Court is not going to sustain any objections which are basing their claim in whole or in substantial part on Plaintiff's own pleading.

Plaintiff's second point, that there was reputational harm, is also an important issue to be decided in trial, therefore it is premature to sustain these objections.

 

[William0324]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Compel

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to provide the following relevant evidence and information:

1. Any screenshots, recordings, or other evidence supporting the Defendant's statement that they searched for “who invited bro” in the Discord GIF searcher and selected the GIF in question.
2. Any evidence in the Defendant's possession supporting their statement that they did not notice the pride flag in the GIF when it was posted.
3. Any screenshots or copies of the relevant Discord conversation in the Defendant's possession, including surrounding messages relevant to the statements at issue in this case.
4. Any evidence supporting the Defendant's assertion that the statements caused no reputational harm to the Plaintiff.
5. The names of persons known to the Defendant who were present in or directly viewed the relevant Discord discussion.

 

[Johnes]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Compel

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to provide the following relevant evidence and information:

1. Any screenshots, recordings, or other evidence supporting the Defendant's statement that they searched for “who invited bro” in the Discord GIF searcher and selected the GIF in question.
2. Any evidence in the Defendant's possession supporting their statement that they did not notice the pride flag in the GIF when it was posted.
3. Any screenshots or copies of the relevant Discord conversation in the Defendant's possession, including surrounding messages relevant to the statements at issue in this case.
4. Any evidence supporting the Defendant's assertion that the statements caused no reputational harm to the Plaintiff.
5. The names of persons known to the Defendant who were present in or directly viewed the relevant Discord discussion.

Does Defendant oppose this?

 

[coslos]

Does Defendant oppose this?

Yes the defence opposes since:
All evidence of request number 1 is publicly available.
Request number 2 requires the defence to prove something did not occur, so it is not possible to fulfill it.
All evidence of request number 3 is publicly available under the thread mentioned in P-003.
Request number 4 requires the defence to prove something did not happen. Again.
Request number 5 is not possible to fulfill, the defendant dosen't have acess to a list of people viewing the conversation.
Therefore most of the requests are either publicly available or don't exist.

 

[Johnes]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Motion to Compel

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to provide the following relevant evidence and information:

1. Any screenshots, recordings, or other evidence supporting the Defendant's statement that they searched for “who invited bro” in the Discord GIF searcher and selected the GIF in question.
2. Any evidence in the Defendant's possession supporting their statement that they did not notice the pride flag in the GIF when it was posted.
3. Any screenshots or copies of the relevant Discord conversation in the Defendant's possession, including surrounding messages relevant to the statements at issue in this case.
4. Any evidence supporting the Defendant's assertion that the statements caused no reputational harm to the Plaintiff.
5. The names of persons known to the Defendant who were present in or directly viewed the relevant Discord discussion.

The Court is going to dissect this motion into the individual points/requests made therein.

1. Denied. The Court in its own search also found the GIF in question and is widely publicly available. This request does not make sense as the material underlying is encompassed in the Discord Conversation.
2. Denied. This would not be feasible as it requests Defendant to produce the non-existence of some thought/perception.
3. Denied. The Discord Conversation is already present in evidence.
4. Denied. Too broad, same reason as no. 2.
5. Denied. Too broad, unfeasible.

 

[William0324]

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION


Your Honor,

1. In the Answer to Complaint, the Defendant AFFIRMS facts 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Complaint. These include that the Plaintiff was a member of the CWC (fact 1), that the Defendant posted the image and wording at issue (fact 3), that the Defendant made the gulag statement (fact 5), that the statements were made in the Discord thread (fact 6), that the statements caused reputational harm within the CWC (fact 10), and that the imagery and wording publicly demeaned the Plaintiff (fact 11).
2. The Defendant also neither confirms nor denies facts 4, 7 and 8, which concern the Plaintiff's identity and the size and accessibility of the audience.
3. The Answer is internally inconsistent. The Defendant affirms facts 10 and 11 but states in Defences paragraphs 5 and 6 that no harm to reputation occurred. The Defendant also DENIES fact 9, which alleges harm.
4. The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court (a) treat facts 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 as admitted, (b) treat facts 4, 7 and 8 as not contested, to the extent permitted by the Court Rules, and (c) alternatively, order the Defendant to clarify which position the Defendant takes on fact 10 and fact 11.
5. The Plaintiff further notes that Defences paragraph 4 states the gulag remark referred to anti-homosexual policies. This confirms that the Defendant intended the remark to be understood in connection with homosexuality.

 

[coslos]

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION


Your Honor,

1. In the Answer to Complaint, the Defendant AFFIRMS facts 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Complaint. These include that the Plaintiff was a member of the CWC (fact 1), that the Defendant posted the image and wording at issue (fact 3), that the Defendant made the gulag statement (fact 5), that the statements were made in the Discord thread (fact 6), that the statements caused reputational harm within the CWC (fact 10), and that the imagery and wording publicly demeaned the Plaintiff (fact 11).
2. The Defendant also neither confirms nor denies facts 4, 7 and 8, which concern the Plaintiff's identity and the size and accessibility of the audience.
3. The Answer is internally inconsistent. The Defendant affirms facts 10 and 11 but states in Defences paragraphs 5 and 6 that no harm to reputation occurred. The Defendant also DENIES fact 9, which alleges harm.
4. The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court (a) treat facts 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 as admitted, (b) treat facts 4, 7 and 8 as not contested, to the extent permitted by the Court Rules, and (c) alternatively, order the Defendant to clarify which position the Defendant takes on fact 10 and fact 11.
5. The Plaintiff further notes that Defences paragraph 4 states the gulag remark referred to anti-homosexual policies. This confirms that the Defendant intended the remark to be understood in connection with homosexuality.

1. Quote "The Plaintiff alleges". Defence can't deny what the plaintiff is alleging. Defence still denies those allegations.
2. The defence has no way of knowing either of those facts.
3. The defence still didn't affirm any of those allegations.
4. No comment.
5. The defendant stated that responding to the plaintiff saying "Hey You made me gay ?". The plaintiff also fails to add context tat the defendant said "heh? th is going on?" before stating that.
The defendant asks the court for permission to edit answers to facts 10 and 11 to avoid confusion and add additional context on why they affirm them.
Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Johnes]

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION


Your Honor,

1. In the Answer to Complaint, the Defendant AFFIRMS facts 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Complaint. These include that the Plaintiff was a member of the CWC (fact 1), that the Defendant posted the image and wording at issue (fact 3), that the Defendant made the gulag statement (fact 5), that the statements were made in the Discord thread (fact 6), that the statements caused reputational harm within the CWC (fact 10), and that the imagery and wording publicly demeaned the Plaintiff (fact 11).
2. The Defendant also neither confirms nor denies facts 4, 7 and 8, which concern the Plaintiff's identity and the size and accessibility of the audience.
3. The Answer is internally inconsistent. The Defendant affirms facts 10 and 11 but states in Defences paragraphs 5 and 6 that no harm to reputation occurred. The Defendant also DENIES fact 9, which alleges harm.
4. The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court (a) treat facts 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 as admitted, (b) treat facts 4, 7 and 8 as not contested, to the extent permitted by the Court Rules, and (c) alternatively, order the Defendant to clarify which position the Defendant takes on fact 10 and fact 11.
5. The Plaintiff further notes that Defences paragraph 4 states the gulag remark referred to anti-homosexual policies. This confirms that the Defendant intended the remark to be understood in connection with homosexuality.

Why are you posting arguments unprompted? If you feel like there's an issue, file an objection or a motion.

Argue in opening and closing statements.

Stricken.

 

[Johnes]

1. Quote "The Plaintiff alleges". Defence can't deny what the plaintiff is alleging. Defence still denies those allegations.
2. The defence has no way of knowing either of those facts.
3. The defence still didn't affirm any of those allegations.
4. No comment.
5. The defendant stated that responding to the plaintiff saying "Hey You made me gay ?". The plaintiff also fails to add context tat the defendant said "heh? th is going on?" before stating that.
The defendant asks the court for permission to edit answers to facts 10 and 11 to avoid confusion and add additional context on why they affirm them.
Thank you for your consideration.

Points 1 to 5 disregarded as moot.

Defendant may edit their answer.

 

[coslos]

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint​

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

1lLight
Plaintiff

v.

coslos
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence AFFIRMS fact 1 in the complaint.
2. The defence DENIES fact 2 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
3. The defence AFFIRMS fact 3 in the complaint.
4. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 4 in the complaint.
5. The defence AFFIRMS fact 5 in the complaint.
6. The defence AFFIRMS fact 6 in the complaint.
7. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 7 in the complaint.
8. The defence neither confirms nor denies fact 8 in the complaint.
9. The defence DENIES fact 9 in the complaint. No evidence was provided.
10. The defence AFFIRMS fact 10 in the complaint. While the defence knows the statement was made and affirms it, they think that the allegations (if submitted as a fact) would get denied.
11. The defence AFFIRMS fact 11 in the complaint. Same as answer 10.

II. DEFENCES
1. The defendant did not notice the pride flag in the GIF, this is a misunderstanding that was no intentional and that they are sorry for not noticing.
2. The defendant used it after the plaintiff joined the conversation with no prior contacts with the defendant, confused the defendant searched up "who invited bro" in discord GIF searcher as a way of showing that confusion. They again, did not notice the pride flag.
3. The plaintiff asked "Hey You made me gay ?". To which the defendant responded with "heh? th is going on?", clearly confused by his statement. Still not aware of the GIF's content.
4. The defendant also stated “also I think that admitting that under a communist post will get you sent to a gulag.” in a reference to common usual communist anti-homosexual policies.
5. The defendant clearly did not mean to hurt the plaintiffs reputation nor has the plaintiff delivered evidence showing any harm suffered as a result of those statements.
6. In conclusion the defendant's statements were not intentional as shown in the conversation shown in(P-002)
and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff funds or reputation.

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 thirtieth(30th) day of September 2026

Points 1 to 5 disregarded as moot.

Defendant may edit their answer.

The changes were made, thank you for your consideration once again

 

[William0324]

Your Honor,

I would like to add Mimtembo to co-counsel on this case.

 

[William0324]

Your Honor,

We consent to ending the discovery early if that's still okay with defense.

 

[coslos]

Your Honor,

We consent to ending the discovery early if that's still okay with defense.

The defence consents to ending the discovery early.

 

[Johnes]

Your Honor,

We consent to ending the discovery early if that's still okay with defense.

The defence consents to ending the discovery early.

So be it.

@William0324, @Mimtembo opening statements are due in 72 hours.

 

[Mimtembo]

Thank you, Your Honor. I look forward to representing our client. This will be my first case, so I apologize if I violate any customs or rules of thumb.