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

[3mkTalal]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

3mkTalal
Plaintiff

v.

legoear
Defendant

COMPLAINT
​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

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

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

I. PARTIES

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

II. FACTS

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

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

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

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

2. Relevant Law: Criminal Code Act, Murder:

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

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

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

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

CLAIM II: UNLAWFUL KILLING UNDER THE CRIMINAL TERMINOLOGY ACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLAIM IV: NOMINAL DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

12. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLAIM VI: PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

20. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant:

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

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001: Screenshot showing the Plaintiff’s death screen after being killed by the Defendant.

Spoiler: P-002: Screenshot showing the Defendant, legoear, inside the Plaintiff’s apartment.

Spoiler: P-003: Screenshot showing the location as Eapt-2(Plot C231).

Spoiler: P-004: Screenshot showing the interior of the apartment and surrounding scene.

Spoiler: P-005: Screenshot or statement showing that the Defendant did not have permission to enter the apartment.

VI. WITNESSES

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

VII. APPENDIX

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

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

DATED: This 25th day of May 2026

 

[aubunny]

Writ of Summons

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

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

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

 

[legoear]

I am present and acknowledge the civil action being taken against me.

 

[aubunny]

I am present and acknowledge the civil action being taken against me.

You (or a lawyer representing you) have 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint. If you require more time, please let the Court know.

 

[Anthony_Org]

You (or a lawyer representing you) have 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint. If you require more time, please let the Court know.

Your honor, I am representing Legoear in this matter.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

 

[aubunny]

Your honor, I am representing Legoear in this matter.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

View attachment 83897

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

 

[Anthony_Org]

Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anthony_Org]

Your honor, I would like to have the deadline on the answer to the complaint tolled until the Motion to Dismiss is ruled on.

 

[aubunny]

Your honor, I would like to have the deadline on the answer to the complaint tolled until the Motion to Dismiss is ruled on.

 Granted

 

[aubunny]

Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[3mkTalal]

Motion

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


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENCE MOTION TO DISMISS


Your Honor,


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


I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD


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


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


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


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


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


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


III. THE DAMAGES ARGUMENTS DO NOT DEFEAT THE CLAIM


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


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


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


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


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


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


V. THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT


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


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


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


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


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


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


VII. THE CORE CLAIM SURVIVES


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


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


PRAYER FOR RELIEF


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


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

 

[Anthony_Org]

Motion

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


PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENCE MOTION TO DISMISS


Your Honor,


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


I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD


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


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


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


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


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


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


III. THE DAMAGES ARGUMENTS DO NOT DEFEAT THE CLAIM


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


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


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


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


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


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


V. THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT


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


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


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


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


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


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


VII. THE CORE CLAIM SURVIVES


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


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


PRAYER FOR RELIEF


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


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

Objection

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

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

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

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

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

Objection

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

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

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

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

 

[3mkTalal]

Objection

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

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

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

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

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

Objection

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

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

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

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE DEFENCE'S OBJECTIONS


Your Honor,


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


I. THE PERJURY OBJECTION DOES NOT LIE AGAINST A BRIEF


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


II. OBJECTION ONE: THE PREMISES


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


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


III. OBJECTION TWO: "EXPECTED TESTIMONY"


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


IV. CONCLUSION


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

 

[Anthony_Org]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE DEFENCE'S OBJECTIONS


Your Honor,


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


I. THE PERJURY OBJECTION DOES NOT LIE AGAINST A BRIEF


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


II. OBJECTION ONE: THE PREMISES


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


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


III. OBJECTION TWO: "EXPECTED TESTIMONY"


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


IV. CONCLUSION


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

Objection

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

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

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

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

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

 

[3mkTalal]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


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

Your Honor,


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

I. PERJURY STILL DOES NOT LIE AGAINST A BRIEF


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


II. THE DEFENCE CARRIES THE BURDEN AND HAS PRESENTED NOTHING


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


III. THERE IS NO FALSEHOOD


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


IV. CONCLUSION


The Defence has filed three successive perjury objections against legal argument in briefs, none supported by the proof the Objections Guide requires. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court overrule the objection and deny the request for a conduct strike.

 

[aubunny]

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

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

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

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

Granted - In Part
It is not required by the complaint format, that is correct.
Sanctions will not be distributed as per the Plaintiffs' response, which shows that there is a lack of intent to lie to the Court, having the wording be a characterization of standard practice in the Plaintiffs' perspective.
The statement will be struck.

---

Objection​

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

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

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

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

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court impose appropriate sanctions.

Granted - In Part

The Plaintiff of a case may be found to have committed perjury and charged as such. Even before the opening of the case, as shown in Oakridge Community Bank & Riggosoft v dimitre977, Oath has been sworn in as part of your Case Filing, and any statement past the initial posting of your case filing, which includes a required oath at the bottom, is held under oath.

The Perjury found had been seen in the plaintiff's claim that the incidents in both cases occurred on different dates, despite the fact that the underlying point of the designation is academic and immaterial to this case, misrepresenting fact under oath falls under the nature of Perjury, regardless of how relevant the fact is to the case.
The Plaintiff shall be charged with Perjury, and fined $1,000 with no imprisonment.
Furthermore, the statement shall be struck.

---

Objection

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

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

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

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

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

Denied
In the absence of underlying proof, the distinction between the statements made by the Prosecution is academic. The Court does not undergo fact-finding missions for either side when the evidence submitted is the entire history of our docket. The Plaintiff said in their brief that the incorrect application of the word was used as characterization, and the Court holds that this is a subjective statement and therefore cannot be demonstrably false.
Furthermore, it is against the spirit of the Court to punish the divulging of extra information, and the existence of the expected testimony on the Prosecution's filing is a welcome addition to this Court, even if unrequired by Rules and Procedures.

 

[aubunny]

Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Order

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

The Defendant has brought forward a Motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5, stating that the claims in the murder case fail to have sufficient evidence, additionally, they raise a failure of fact using Rule 5.14, where the statement of the building being a private apartment being false allows for the dismissal of the case.

The Court does not align with the Defendant's findings in some regards.

For Rule 5.5, damages are found within the Nominal, Consequential, and Punitive Awards.

For Nominal, the Court finds the use of Nominal damages invalid as they are only granted in the instance that the party is not entitled to any other damages. (See RCCA Part 3 Section 4) In this case, they list two other damages, with reasoning supporting why these damages should be granted by the Court. Showing potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case.

Consequential and Punitive damages will be upheld for the duration of discovery, as new evidence may be granted that sheds light on the claims found within the Filing. The Defendant is welcome to resubmit this motion after discovery if they so choose.

For Rule 5.14, the Court dismisses the claim, as the distinction between a private residential apartment and a law office is academic to the underlying facts of the case, and the Court does not see it as worth dismissing over. The Court acknowledges, for the record, the alternative use of this apartment.

The case will proceed as is without the Nominal Damages. The deadline for the Answer to Complaint will be untolled.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Court Order

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

The Defendant has brought forward a Motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5, stating that the claims in the murder case fail to have sufficient evidence, additionally, they raise a failure of fact using Rule 5.14, where the statement of the building being a private apartment being false allows for the dismissal of the case.

The Court does not align with the Defendant's findings in some regards.

For Rule 5.5, damages are found within the Nominal, Consequential, and Punitive Awards.

For Nominal, the Court finds the use of Nominal damages invalid as they are only granted in the instance that the party is not entitled to any other damages. (See RCCA Part 3 Section 4) In this case, they list two other damages, with reasoning supporting why these damages should be granted by the Court. Showing potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case.

Consequential and Punitive damages will be upheld for the duration of discovery, as new evidence may be granted that sheds light on the claims found within the Filing. The Defendant is welcome to resubmit this motion after discovery if they so choose.

For Rule 5.14, the Court dismisses the claim, as the distinction between a private residential apartment and a law office is academic to the underlying facts of the case, and the Court does not see it as worth dismissing over. The Court acknowledges, for the record, the alternative use of this apartment.

The case will proceed as is without the Nominal Damages. The deadline for the Answer to Complaint will be untolled.

Your honor, the defense respectfully asks for a 24 hour extension due to IRL work. I can submit my work schedule in a closed court/ticket.

 

[aubunny]

Your honor, the defense respectfully asks for a 24 hour extension due to IRL work. I can submit my work schedule in a closed court/ticket.

That won't be necessary, your extension is Granted.

 

[Anthony_Org]

That won't be necessary, your extension is Granted.

Your honor, just to clarify the deadline is tomorrow approx 27 hours from now?

 

[Anthony_Org]

Answer to Complaint

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

I. ANSWER TO FACTS

1. Neither affirm nor deny. Two civil actions on this docket, this case and megaprogam3r v. Osirisx88 [2026] DCR 57, arise from the same location, Plot C231 Eapt-2, at the same date and time. One describes it as a private apartment and the other as a law office under renovation.

2. AFFIRMED that the defense entered the plaintiff's property. Neither affirm nor deny that it was his apartment.

3. AFFIRMED that the defense killed the plaintiff. Neither affirm nor deny that it was his apartment.

4. AFFIRMED.

5. AFFIRMED in part. The Defendant affirms that the Plaintiff did not consent to being killed. The Defendant neither affirms nor denies that the Plaintiff did not consent to the Defendant's entry, as the nature and use of the premises remain in dispute between two conflicting filings on this docket.

6. Affirmed in part. The plaintiff has screenshots showing his death screen. Neither affirm nor deny that it was in his apartment. DENIES its location as "Apt-2".

7. DENIED. This is not an established fact.

8. DENIED. This is not an established fact. It is a legal conclusion and characterisation by the Plaintiff. Whether the Defendant's conduct was especially serious is a matter for the finder of fact to determine at trial.

II. DEFENCES

1. Failure to Prove Consequential Damages:

The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 5(2)(a) states that consequential damages must be proven "on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable person, when subjected to the same circumstances, would also experience the same type of consequential damage." The Plaintiff has submitted no evidence capable of meeting this standard. No documentation, no corroborating witness, and no quantifiable basis for any of the claimed harms has been produced. The Plaintiff relies entirely on his own self-serving testimony from a witness who is simultaneously the claimant and counsel of record, and who has already been found to have misrepresented fact under oath in these very proceedings. Furthermore, Part III, Section 5(3)(a) states that "the judicial officer must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof according to the standard of a balance of probabilities." There is no such evidence here, and the award must accordingly be denied.

2. Failure to Prove Compensatory Damages:

The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 2(2)(a) states that "compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities." The Plaintiff does not allege a single instance of pecuniary loss anywhere in his Complaint. No items are alleged to have been lost. No income is alleged to have been lost. No property damage is alleged. Not one of the five exhibits submitted demonstrates any financial harm of any kind. The statutory threshold for compensatory damages has not been met and cannot be met on the evidence as it stands.

3. Punitive Damages Threshold Not Met:

The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3(2)(b) defines outrageous conduct as conduct that "demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others." The statute further provides that conduct is outrageous only where at least one of the following is met: the defendant intended to cause harm or loss; the defendant acted knowing their conduct was likely to disadvantage or harm another person; the defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm would occur; the conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust; the defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct; or the conduct demonstrates gross negligence. The Plaintiff has submitted no evidence establishing any of these criteria. No premeditation, no prior threats, no repeated conduct, no dishonesty, and no aggravating factor beyond the killing itself has been evidenced. A single killing, without independent corroborating evidence of any of the statutory criteria, does not satisfy this elevated threshold.

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 2nd of June, 2026

 

[Anthony_Org]

Your honor, may I amend my filing to properly BOLD the affirming and denying of facts and the section titles?

 

[aubunny]

We will enter discovery, and it will end in 5 days.

---

Your honor, may I amend my filing to properly BOLD the affirming and denying of facts and the section titles?

Granted

 

[Anthony_Org]

The defense wishes to end discovery if the plaintiff concurs

We will enter discovery, and it will end in 5 days.

---

Granted

 

[3mkTalal]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff does not consent to ending discovery early and wishes to use the full discovery period. The Plaintiff intends to make further submissions before discovery closes.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

legoear (Represented by Anthony_Org)
Counterplaintiff

v.

3mkTalal
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT

The Counterplaintiff complains against the Counterdefendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE COUNTERPLAINTIFF

The Defendant is countersuing due to the frivolous nature of this case. The Counterdefendant has filed a civil action seeking $4,500 in damages while failing to allege a single instance of pecuniary loss, relying entirely on self-serving testimony from a witness who is simultaneously the claimant and counsel of record, and who has already been found to have misrepresented fact under oath in these very proceedings. Anthony_Org is representing the Counterplaintiff pro bono. In return, we levy this Counterclaim to deter cases of this nature and to protect defendants from bearing the burden of frivolous litigation.

I. PARTIES

1. legoear, Counterplaintiff.
2. 3mkTalal, Counterdefendant.

II. FACTS

1. The Counterdefendant filed a civil action against the Counterplaintiff seeking $4,500 in damages arising from an alleged unlawful killing.

2. The Counterdefendant did not allege a single instance of pecuniary loss anywhere in his Complaint. No items lost, no income lost, no property damaged.

3. The Counterdefendant's only listed witness is himself, who is simultaneously the claimant and counsel of record in this matter.

4. The Counterdefendant described his own witness testimony as "expected," indicating it was speculative and unconfirmed at the time of filing.

5. The Counterdefendant has already been found by this Court to have misrepresented fact under oath in these proceedings and was fined $1,000 for perjury.

6. The Counterdefendant sought $1,000 in nominal damages while simultaneously seeking consequential and punitive damages, which is inconsistent with the statutory definition of nominal damages under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4, which provides that nominal damages are available only where the plaintiff "has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages." The Court has since struck the nominal damages claim on this basis.

7. A frivolous court case is defined under the Criminal Code Act as one that "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value."

8. The Counterdefendant filed this case without any evidence of actual harm, without any pecuniary loss, without any corroborating witnesses, and with internally inconsistent damages claims, one of which has already been struck by the Court.

9. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII, Section 2 provides that a person commits a violation of Abuse of Legal Process if they "initiate or pursue a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis" and "the claim causes harm to the defendant."

10. The Counterplaintiff has suffered harm as a direct result of this filing, including the burden of defending a claim that lacks any evidentiary foundation.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Counterdefendant filed this action without reasonable basis, having submitted no evidence of pecuniary loss, no corroborating witnesses, and internally inconsistent damages claims, constituting an Abuse of Legal Process under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII, Section 2.

2. The Counterdefendant's conduct in filing and pursuing this action, compounded by a finding of perjury against him in these very proceedings, constitutes outrageous conduct within the meaning of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3(2)(b), authorising an award of punitive damages.

3. In the alternative, the Counterplaintiff seeks nominal damages under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4, in recognition that a legal cause of action has been established even where substantial loss cannot be proven.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. $10,000 in punitive damages for the Counterdefendant's frivolous and outrageous conduct in filing and pursuing this action.

2. Legal fees in accordance with the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 7, calculated at 30% of the case value with a minimum of $3,000 for cases heard in the District Court.

3. In the alternative, $7,500 in nominal damages if punitive damages cannot be awarded.

4. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

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 4th day of June, 2026

 

[Anthony_Org]

Your honor, may I amend my counter case filing to adjust the date to today? I used my initial answer draft (which I ended up completing on a later day being 2nd of June) as a template and mistakenly forgot to adjust the date to todays date, 6/4/26.

 

[3mkTalal]

Motion

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

legoear (Represented by Anthony_Org)
Counterplaintiff

v.

3mkTalal
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT

The Counterplaintiff complains against the Counterdefendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE COUNTERPLAINTIFF

The Defendant is countersuing due to the frivolous nature of this case. The Counterdefendant has filed a civil action seeking $4,500 in damages while failing to allege a single instance of pecuniary loss, relying entirely on self-serving testimony from a witness who is simultaneously the claimant and counsel of record, and who has already been found to have misrepresented fact under oath in these very proceedings. Anthony_Org is representing the Counterplaintiff pro bono. In return, we levy this Counterclaim to deter cases of this nature and to protect defendants from bearing the burden of frivolous litigation.

I. PARTIES

1. legoear, Counterplaintiff.
2. 3mkTalal, Counterdefendant.

II. FACTS

1. The Counterdefendant filed a civil action against the Counterplaintiff seeking $4,500 in damages arising from an alleged unlawful killing.

2. The Counterdefendant did not allege a single instance of pecuniary loss anywhere in his Complaint. No items lost, no income lost, no property damaged.

3. The Counterdefendant's only listed witness is himself, who is simultaneously the claimant and counsel of record in this matter.

4. The Counterdefendant described his own witness testimony as "expected," indicating it was speculative and unconfirmed at the time of filing.

5. The Counterdefendant has already been found by this Court to have misrepresented fact under oath in these proceedings and was fined $1,000 for perjury.

6. The Counterdefendant sought $1,000 in nominal damages while simultaneously seeking consequential and punitive damages, which is inconsistent with the statutory definition of nominal damages under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4, which provides that nominal damages are available only where the plaintiff "has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages." The Court has since struck the nominal damages claim on this basis.

7. A frivolous court case is defined under the Criminal Code Act as one that "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value."

8. The Counterdefendant filed this case without any evidence of actual harm, without any pecuniary loss, without any corroborating witnesses, and with internally inconsistent damages claims, one of which has already been struck by the Court.

9. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII, Section 2 provides that a person commits a violation of Abuse of Legal Process if they "initiate or pursue a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis" and "the claim causes harm to the defendant."

10. The Counterplaintiff has suffered harm as a direct result of this filing, including the burden of defending a claim that lacks any evidentiary foundation.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Counterdefendant filed this action without reasonable basis, having submitted no evidence of pecuniary loss, no corroborating witnesses, and internally inconsistent damages claims, constituting an Abuse of Legal Process under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII, Section 2.

2. The Counterdefendant's conduct in filing and pursuing this action, compounded by a finding of perjury against him in these very proceedings, constitutes outrageous conduct within the meaning of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3(2)(b), authorising an award of punitive damages.

3. In the alternative, the Counterplaintiff seeks nominal damages under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4, in recognition that a legal cause of action has been established even where substantial loss cannot be proven.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. $10,000 in punitive damages for the Counterdefendant's frivolous and outrageous conduct in filing and pursuing this action.

2. Legal fees in accordance with the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 7, calculated at 30% of the case value with a minimum of $3,000 for cases heard in the District Court.

3. In the alternative, $7,500 in nominal damages if punitive damages cannot be awarded.

4. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

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 4th day of June, 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


COUNTERDEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM​

Your Honor,


The Counterdefendant respectfully moves to dismiss the Counterclaim under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), the same rule under which this Court adjudicated the Defence's earlier Motion to Dismiss. The Counterclaim fails to state a viable claim for Abuse of Legal Process, and the relief it seeks is in part barred by this Court's own prior ruling in this case.


I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD


A Motion to Dismiss tests whether a claim is legally viable on the law and the case record. It does not weigh evidence or resolve credibility. The Counterplaintiff bears the burden of pleading every element of the violation asserted. The violation pleaded is Abuse of Legal Process under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII, Section 2, which requires both that the Counterdefendant "(a) initiates or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis" and that "(b) the claim causes harm to the defendant." Both elements must be met. Neither is.


II. THIS COURT HAS ALREADY FOUND THE CLAIM HAS A REASONABLE BASIS


Element (a) requires bad faith, improper purpose, or the absence of any reasonable basis. This Court has already decided that question, in this case, against the Counterplaintiff.


In its Order on the Defence's Motion to Dismiss, the Court denied dismissal of the core claim, expressly upheld the consequential and punitive damages claims for the duration of discovery, and invited the Defence to resubmit only after discovery. The Court dismissed the Defence's Rule 5.14 attack outright, holding that the apartment versus office distinction was "academic to the underlying facts of the case." The only relief struck was nominal damages, and that on a narrow statutory ground unrelated to the merits.


A claim that a judicial officer has examined on a dispositive motion and expressly permitted to proceed toward trial cannot, at the same time and in the same proceeding, be one brought "without reasonable basis" or for an "improper purpose." The Court's own Order forecloses element (a).


III. ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS IS AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION REQUIRING PROOF OF PURPOSE TO HARM


Abuse of Legal Process is classified in the Code as an Intentional violation (RCCA Part XII, Section 2). Under Part II, Section 9(2), an intentional violation requires the claimant to prove that the other party "acted with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm would result from their conduct."


The Counterclaim pleads no such intent, and none can be inferred from the filing of a claim that survived dismissal. Bringing a colourable action that the Court has allowed to proceed is the opposite of acting with the purpose of causing harm. The intent element is absent on the face of the pleading.


IV. THE COUNTERCLAIM MERELY REPACKAGES THE DEFENCE'S ANSWER


The Code requires that a counterclaim "assert an independent violation under this Code or other applicable law; it is not merely a defence to the plaintiff's claim" (RCCA Part IV, Section 2(4)).


Every factual assertion in the Counterclaim is drawn directly from the Defences raised in the Counterplaintiff's own Answer to Complaint: the absence of pleaded pecuniary loss, the single party witness, the use of the word "expected," and the contention that a single killing cannot meet the punitive threshold. These are defensive arguments about the strength of the Counterdefendant's case. Relabelling them as a freestanding violation does not make them an independent claim, and Section 2(4) forbids precisely that.


V. THE COUNTERCLAIM PLEADS NO HARM BEYOND THE ORDINARY BURDEN OF LITIGATION


Element (b) requires that the claim "causes harm to the defendant." The only harm the Counterclaim identifies is the burden of defending the action, and the Counterplaintiff concedes that his counsel appears pro bono, so no fee burden is even alleged.


The ordinary burden of responding to a lawsuit cannot itself be the harm contemplated by Part XII, Section 2. If it were, every defendant in Redmont could countersue every plaintiff for the mere fact of having been required to respond. The harm element is unmet.


VI. THE PERJURY FINDING DOES NOT ESTABLISH ABUSE OF PROCESS


The Counterclaim relies on this Court's prior perjury finding as evidence of bad faith. It establishes no such thing. That finding concerned a single statement about the designation of the premises, a point this Court itself described as "academic and immaterial to this case." The statement was struck and a fine imposed. The matter is closed and was, by the Court's own words, immaterial.


A finding that one collateral statement was misstated does not establish that the action as a whole was initiated or pursued in bad faith or without reasonable basis. Those are separate questions, and the Court answered the second of them in the Counterdefendant's favour when it allowed the claim to proceed. A single immaterial misstatement is not a foundation for Abuse of Legal Process.


VII. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COUNTERCLAIM IS A WAIVED COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM


Should the Court reach the question, the Counterclaim is procedurally barred. A compulsory counterclaim is one "arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or subject matter as the original claim," and it "must be filed within the defendant's initial response to the lawsuit, or [it is] waived" (RCCA Part IV, Sections 1(4) and 2(2)).


The Counterclaim for Abuse of Legal Process arises entirely from the original action. It has no existence independent of the very lawsuit it attacks, and its subject matter is that lawsuit. It is therefore a compulsory counterclaim that was required to be raised in the Counterplaintiff's initial response, the Answer to Complaint. It was not. It appeared only later, during discovery. Having been omitted from the initial response, it is waived. The Counterdefendant raises this in the alternative. Even if the Court treats the Counterclaim as permissive, it still fails for the substantive reasons above.


VIII. THE ALTERNATIVE NOMINAL DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS UNDER THIS COURT'S OWN RULING


The Counterclaim seeks, in the alternative, $7,500 in nominal damages. Nominal damages are available only where a party "has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages" (RCCA Part III, Section 4).


This Court has already applied that provision in this very case. It struck the Counterdefendant's nominal claim precisely because he pleaded other damages with supporting reasoning, which the Court held showed "potential entitlement to other damages." The Counterplaintiff does the same thing. He pleads $10,000 in punitive damages, with supporting argument, in the same filing. By the rule this Court has already announced here, his alternative nominal claim must be struck on identical grounds.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Counterdefendant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Dismiss the Counterclaim under Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim for Abuse of Legal Process;
2. In the alternative, find the Counterclaim waived as a compulsory counterclaim not raised in the Counterplaintiff's initial response, and strike the alternative claim for nominal damages; and
3. Grant any other relief the Court finds just and proper.
   

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 4th day of June, 2026

 

[Anthony_Org]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


COUNTERDEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM​

Your Honor,


The Counterdefendant respectfully moves to dismiss the Counterclaim under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), the same rule under which this Court adjudicated the Defence's earlier Motion to Dismiss. The Counterclaim fails to state a viable claim for Abuse of Legal Process, and the relief it seeks is in part barred by this Court's own prior ruling in this case.


I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD


A Motion to Dismiss tests whether a claim is legally viable on the law and the case record. It does not weigh evidence or resolve credibility. The Counterplaintiff bears the burden of pleading every element of the violation asserted. The violation pleaded is Abuse of Legal Process under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XII, Section 2, which requires both that the Counterdefendant "(a) initiates or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis" and that "(b) the claim causes harm to the defendant." Both elements must be met. Neither is.


II. THIS COURT HAS ALREADY FOUND THE CLAIM HAS A REASONABLE BASIS


Element (a) requires bad faith, improper purpose, or the absence of any reasonable basis. This Court has already decided that question, in this case, against the Counterplaintiff.


In its Order on the Defence's Motion to Dismiss, the Court denied dismissal of the core claim, expressly upheld the consequential and punitive damages claims for the duration of discovery, and invited the Defence to resubmit only after discovery. The Court dismissed the Defence's Rule 5.14 attack outright, holding that the apartment versus office distinction was "academic to the underlying facts of the case." The only relief struck was nominal damages, and that on a narrow statutory ground unrelated to the merits.


A claim that a judicial officer has examined on a dispositive motion and expressly permitted to proceed toward trial cannot, at the same time and in the same proceeding, be one brought "without reasonable basis" or for an "improper purpose." The Court's own Order forecloses element (a).


III. ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS IS AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION REQUIRING PROOF OF PURPOSE TO HARM


Abuse of Legal Process is classified in the Code as an Intentional violation (RCCA Part XII, Section 2). Under Part II, Section 9(2), an intentional violation requires the claimant to prove that the other party "acted with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm would result from their conduct."


The Counterclaim pleads no such intent, and none can be inferred from the filing of a claim that survived dismissal. Bringing a colourable action that the Court has allowed to proceed is the opposite of acting with the purpose of causing harm. The intent element is absent on the face of the pleading.


IV. THE COUNTERCLAIM MERELY REPACKAGES THE DEFENCE'S ANSWER


The Code requires that a counterclaim "assert an independent violation under this Code or other applicable law; it is not merely a defence to the plaintiff's claim" (RCCA Part IV, Section 2(4)).


Every factual assertion in the Counterclaim is drawn directly from the Defences raised in the Counterplaintiff's own Answer to Complaint: the absence of pleaded pecuniary loss, the single party witness, the use of the word "expected," and the contention that a single killing cannot meet the punitive threshold. These are defensive arguments about the strength of the Counterdefendant's case. Relabelling them as a freestanding violation does not make them an independent claim, and Section 2(4) forbids precisely that.


V. THE COUNTERCLAIM PLEADS NO HARM BEYOND THE ORDINARY BURDEN OF LITIGATION


Element (b) requires that the claim "causes harm to the defendant." The only harm the Counterclaim identifies is the burden of defending the action, and the Counterplaintiff concedes that his counsel appears pro bono, so no fee burden is even alleged.


The ordinary burden of responding to a lawsuit cannot itself be the harm contemplated by Part XII, Section 2. If it were, every defendant in Redmont could countersue every plaintiff for the mere fact of having been required to respond. The harm element is unmet.


VI. THE PERJURY FINDING DOES NOT ESTABLISH ABUSE OF PROCESS


The Counterclaim relies on this Court's prior perjury finding as evidence of bad faith. It establishes no such thing. That finding concerned a single statement about the designation of the premises, a point this Court itself described as "academic and immaterial to this case." The statement was struck and a fine imposed. The matter is closed and was, by the Court's own words, immaterial.


A finding that one collateral statement was misstated does not establish that the action as a whole was initiated or pursued in bad faith or without reasonable basis. Those are separate questions, and the Court answered the second of them in the Counterdefendant's favour when it allowed the claim to proceed. A single immaterial misstatement is not a foundation for Abuse of Legal Process.


VII. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COUNTERCLAIM IS A WAIVED COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM


Should the Court reach the question, the Counterclaim is procedurally barred. A compulsory counterclaim is one "arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or subject matter as the original claim," and it "must be filed within the defendant's initial response to the lawsuit, or [it is] waived" (RCCA Part IV, Sections 1(4) and 2(2)).


The Counterclaim for Abuse of Legal Process arises entirely from the original action. It has no existence independent of the very lawsuit it attacks, and its subject matter is that lawsuit. It is therefore a compulsory counterclaim that was required to be raised in the Counterplaintiff's initial response, the Answer to Complaint. It was not. It appeared only later, during discovery. Having been omitted from the initial response, it is waived. The Counterdefendant raises this in the alternative. Even if the Court treats the Counterclaim as permissive, it still fails for the substantive reasons above.


VIII. THE ALTERNATIVE NOMINAL DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS UNDER THIS COURT'S OWN RULING


The Counterclaim seeks, in the alternative, $7,500 in nominal damages. Nominal damages are available only where a party "has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages" (RCCA Part III, Section 4).


This Court has already applied that provision in this very case. It struck the Counterdefendant's nominal claim precisely because he pleaded other damages with supporting reasoning, which the Court held showed "potential entitlement to other damages." The Counterplaintiff does the same thing. He pleads $10,000 in punitive damages, with supporting argument, in the same filing. By the rule this Court has already announced here, his alternative nominal claim must be struck on identical grounds.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Counterdefendant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Dismiss the Counterclaim under Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim for Abuse of Legal Process;
2. In the alternative, find the Counterclaim waived as a compulsory counterclaim not raised in the Counterplaintiff's initial response, and strike the alternative claim for nominal damages; and
3. Grant any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

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 4th day of June, 2026

Motion

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

The Defence moves to strike Section II of the Counterdefendant's Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

Section II of the Counterdefendant's Motion is titled "This Court Has Already Found the Claim Has a Reasonable Basis" and relies entirely on the premise that this Court's prior ruling on the Defence's Motion to Dismiss constituted a substantive finding that the original claim was brought with reasonable basis. That premise is factually incorrect and is directly contradicted by the Court's own order, which is on the record in this case.

The Court's order stated that consequential and punitive damages "will be upheld for the duration of discovery, as new evidence may be granted that sheds light on the claims found within the Filing," and expressly invited the Defence to resubmit the motion after discovery if they so choose. That is a procedural stay pending discovery. The Court made no finding on the merits of the claim, no finding that the claim was brought in good faith, and no finding that the claim had a reasonable basis. It deferred those questions to the conclusion of discovery.

An argument built entirely on a mischaracterisation of this Court's own prior order is impertinent and immaterial to the legal question before the Court. It does not accurately represent the record, and allowing it to stand without correction would permit the Counterdefendant to benefit from a false reading of the Court's own words. The Court's order speaks for itself and cannot be recast as a merits determination when the order expressly contemplated further proceedings.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court strike Section II of the Counterdefendant's Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim from the record.

Motion

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

The Defence moves to strike Section VII of the Counterdefendant's Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

Section VII argues that the counterclaim is a waived compulsory counterclaim because it was not raised in the Counterplaintiff's initial Answer to Complaint. This argument is built on a misapplication of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part IV, and is impertinent to the legal question before the Court.

The counterclaim pleads Abuse of Legal Process under Part XII, Section 2, a violation arising from the Counterdefendant's conduct in filing and pursuing this action. Under Part IV, Section 1(5), a permissive claim is defined as one "arising from a different transaction or occurrence than the original claim." The Abuse of Legal Process claim does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim. It arises from the Counterdefendant's conduct in bringing and pursuing the litigation itself, which is a separate and distinct occurrence from the underlying killing that forms the basis of the original claim. The two claims have different subject matter, different facts, and different legal tests. The counterclaim is therefore permissive, not compulsory.

Under Part IV, Section 2(3), permissive counterclaims may be filed before the close of discovery. The counterclaim was filed during the discovery period, which has not yet closed. It is therefore timely as a matter of law.

The Counterdefendant's entire Section VII argument depends on the counterclaim being compulsory. It is not. The argument is impertinent, misapplies the statutory framework, and should be struck from the record.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court strike Section VII from the record.

 

[3mkTalal]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


COUNTERDEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENCE'S MOTIONS TO STRIKE
​

Your Honor,


The Defence has filed two Motions to Strike, directed at Section II and Section VII of the Counterdefendant's Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim. Both should be overruled. A Motion to Strike does not lie against the legal argument of an opposing motion, and in any event the two sections are both pertinent and properly raised.


I. A MOTION TO STRIKE DOES NOT LIE AGAINST LEGAL ARGUMENT IN A MOTION


A Motion to Strike is directed at improperly formatted or inadmissible evidence, at procedurally improper or disruptive filings, or at matter wrongly inserted into a pleading, such as a legal conclusion presented as a fact. It is not a device for removing an opposing party's legal arguments because the other side disagrees with them. This Court has overruled a Motion to Strike where the challenged filing was a legitimate request and not something that disrupted the Court's proceedings (Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of Construction and Transportation [2025] FCR 78).


Sections II and VII are legal arguments contained in a properly filed Motion to Dismiss. The proper course for the Defence is to oppose those arguments and allow the Court to sustain or overrule the Motion to Dismiss on their merits. The remedy for an argument a party believes is mistaken is rebuttal and a ruling, not erasure from the record. Were it otherwise, any party could move to strike any argument it found inconvenient, and substantive adjudication would be replaced by competing motions to strike. That is not the function of the device.


This is the same principle the Court applied when it addressed the Defence's earlier objections to argument contained in the Counterdefendant's briefs. An objection, and equally a motion to strike, does not lie against legal argument. On that basis alone, both Motions should be overruled.


II. SECTION II IS PERTINENT AND CORRECT


Section II goes to the central element of the Counterclaim, whether the original action was brought "without reasonable basis" under Part XII, Section 2. An argument directed at the core element of the opposing claim is the opposite of immaterial.


The Defence contends that the Court's prior Order was a procedural stay rather than a final determination on the merits. The Counterdefendant does not need it to have been a final merits determination. The original claim was challenged under, and survived, Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), which is the very mechanism by which baseless claims are disposed of. The Court declined to dismiss the core claim and permitted the consequential and punitive claims to proceed. A claim that survives the lack-of-claim motion is not, at this stage, a claim brought "without reasonable basis." That point stands whether or not the Order is characterised as a merits finding.


To the extent the Court reads the heading of Section II as asserting a final merits adjudication, the Counterdefendant is content for it to be understood as stating only that the Court declined to dismiss the claim, which defeats the "without reasonable basis" element at this stage. That is a clarification of wording, not a withdrawal of the argument, and it removes any basis for striking the section.


III. SECTION VII RAISES A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE, NOT TO STRIKE


Section VII argues, in the alternative, that the Counterclaim is a compulsory counterclaim that was waived when it was omitted from the Defence's initial response. The Defence responds that the Counterclaim is permissive. That disagreement is precisely a question of law for the Court to resolve in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. It is not a basis to strike the argument from the record.


The Defence's Motion quotes only the definition of a permissive claim under Part IV, Section 1(5) and omits the definition of a compulsory claim under Part IV, Section 1(4), which extends to any claim "arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or subject matter as the original claim." The subject matter of an Abuse of Legal Process claim is the original action itself, which the claim cannot exist without. Whether that brings the Counterclaim within the compulsory definition is a contested legal question. The Counterdefendant raised it in the alternative and asks the Court to decide it on the merits. A contested point of statutory interpretation is not impertinent matter subject to striking.


IV. CONCLUSION


A Motion to Strike does not reach the legal arguments of an opposing motion, and Sections II and VII are both pertinent and properly raised. The Counterdefendant respectfully requests that the Court overrule both Motions to Strike and proceed to rule on the Motion to Dismiss on its merits.

 

[3mkTalal]

We will enter discovery, and it will end in 5 days.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests a 48-hour extension to submit discovery responses due to real-life relocation and travel. I apologize for the inconvenience and will submit the responses within the requested extension period. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[aubunny]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests a 48-hour extension to submit discovery responses due to real-life relocation and travel. I apologize for the inconvenience and will submit the responses within the requested extension period. Thank you for your consideration.

Granted

 

[3mkTalal]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52


PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION​

Your Honor,


Pursuant to Rules 4.6 and 4.9, and within the open discovery period, the Plaintiff submits the following witnesses and evidence.


I. WITNESSES (RULE 4.9)

1. legoear (Defendant)
2. nether_fish5001 (aka Seamus)

II. EVIDENCE (RULE 4.6)

Spoiler: P-006: Screenshot of the sign posted at the premises reading "no entry," showing the premises under active renovation.

III. RELEVANCE


The witnesses and exhibit establish that Plot C231, Eapt-2, was controlled, occupied, and closed to entry at the time of the killing. The posted "no entry" sign establishes that the Defendant entered without permission, which answers the Defendant's hedge in his Answer on that point, and supports the deliberate nature of the conduct pleaded in support of punitive damages. The renovation further corroborates the disruption and interference with the Plaintiff's lawful use of the premises already pleaded in the Complaint. The Defendant's own testimony is relevant to liability, as the circumstances of his entry, his status at the premises, and the absence of any justification are matters within his direct knowledge.


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 8th day of June, 2026