Lawsuit: Pending Boykisse v. SalTheMander [2026] DCR 21

[Boykisser]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION



Boykisse
Plaintiff


v.


SalTheMander
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On February 16th, 2026, while interacting in the DemocracyCraft Discord/roleplay server, the Defendant SalTheMander verbally threatened to murder me by saying:
"I’m going to kill you, Boykisse, if I see you on the server again."


This statement caused me to experience fear and distress, and it disrupted my ability to safely participate in DemocracyCraft activities.


The Defendant’s actions constitute a violation of the Criminal Code – Threats offence, which prohibits verbally threatening another player with communication intended to cause fear or force action.


I respectfully request that the Court recognize this violation and issue appropriate relief in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Boykisse
2. Defendant SalTheMander

II. FACTS
1. On February 16th, 2026, while interacting in the DemocracyCraft Discord server, the Defendant made a verbal threat to the Plaintiff, stating: "I’m going to kill you, Boykisse, if I see you on the server again." (im gmt)
2. This threat was made publicly in the server chat and was witnessed by other players, including Fhaa.
3. The Plaintiff experienced fear, emotional distress, and disruption of normal gameplay as a result of this threat.
4. The Defendant’s statement is a clear violation of the Information - Laws which is in PART V.4, which prohibits verbally threatening another player with communication intended to cause fear or force action.

Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 1 Penalty Units
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) verbally threatens another player with communication to cause fear or force action.
Relevant Law:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant’s actions constitute an offence under Information - Laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendant’s actions, which have caused emotional distress and disrupted participation in DemocracyCraft activities.
3. The Plaintiff requests that the Court recognize the Defendant’s violation of the Criminal Code and impose appropriate in-game sanctions.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant
A formal in-game apology issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
In-game sanctions consistent with the Information - Laws, such as a fine, suspension, or probation.
Any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court to restore the Plaintiff’s safety and participation in the server.

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

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 17th day of February 2026

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@SalTheMander , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Boykisse v. SalTheMander [2026] DCR 21

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.

 

[dearev]

Defendant is warned not to attempt to DM or communicate outside of record with the presiding officer about an ongoing case.

 

[Darklander]

Your honor, I am here representing SalTheMander

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[dearev]

Your honor, I am here representing SalTheMander

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 74613

please present an answer within 48 hours.

 

[Darklander]

Answer to Complaint

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

Boykisse
Plaintiff

v.

SalTheMander
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Boykisse received the message attributed to Defendant on or about February 16th, 2026, containing words to the effect of: “I’m going to kill you, Boykisse, if I see you on the server again.”
2. Defendant denies that this communication was made **to cause fear** or **to force action**, as required by the offence definition of “4 - Threats” (PART V.4).
3. Defendant denies that Plaintiff experienced fear, emotional distress, or a meaningful disruption of normal gameplay as a result of Defendant’s message, and demands strict proof.
4. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested (including sanctions and a compelled apology), and requests dismissal or, in the alternative, any relief be limited as the Court deems appropriate and proportionate.

II. DEFENCES
1. **Failure to meet elements of the offence (intent element):** The charged offence requires that the verbal threat be a communication **to cause fear or force action**. Defendant denies having the requisite intent. Even if the words are accepted as written, Plaintiff must still prove the communication was intended to cause fear or force action; Defendant contests that element.
2. **No credible showing of fear/distress (damages/impact disputed):** Defendant denies Plaintiff’s assertions of fear, emotional distress, and disruption. Plaintiff’s claimed impact is conclusory and unsupported by specific facts demonstrating actual fear or coercion.
3. **Plaintiff’s own statements indicate lack of fear and a litigation-motivated posture:** Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s conduct and statements show a posture inconsistent with genuine fear or distress. Plaintiff stated, “i think i found a new law suit[sic],” and later affirmed to Defendant that “it is” a hustle when questioned about Plaintiff’s attitude towards lawsuits. Defendant submits these statements undermine Plaintiff’s claim that the communication caused fear or coerced action, and instead suggest an opportunistic motive.
4. **Vexatious prosecution / abuse of process:** Defendant asserts that the Complaint is consistent with vexatious prosecution (i.e., pursuing legal process primarily to harass, generate leverage, or “hustle,” rather than to vindicate a legitimate harm). Defendant requests the Court consider this in assessing credibility, weight of evidence, and whether relief is appropriate.
5. **Proportionality:** Even if a technical violation were found, Defendant submits the requested relief (sanctions, suspension/probation, compelled apology) is disproportionate where Plaintiff has not proven the offence elements—particularly intent to cause fear/force action—or any concrete impact.


**Evidence:**
1.

Spoiler: D-001

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 19 day of february, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


SalTheMander
CounterPlaintiff

v.

Boykisse
CounterDefendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff (hereinafter “CounterPlaintiff”) complains against the Defendant (hereinafter “CounterDefendant”) as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On or about 17 February 2026, during discussion of the present lawsuit, CounterDefendant stated in public Discord chat:
• “i think i found a new law suit[sic]”
When asked by CounterPlaintiff whether lawsuits were merely a money-making tactic, CounterDefendant replied:
• “it is” (affirming lawsuits are a “hustle”).
These statements demonstrate CounterDefendant’s intent to use legal proceedings for improper, profit-motivated purposes rather than to vindicate a genuine harm.

I. PARTIES
1. CounterPlaintiff: SalTheMander, resident of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. CounterDefendant: Boykisse, resident of the Commonwealth of Redmont.


II. FACTS
1. CounterDefendant filed the underlying action alleging “Threats” against CounterPlaintiff, demanding sanctions and an apology.
2. During conversation regarding that filing, CounterDefendant openly characterized lawsuits as a “hustle” and celebrated having “found a new law suit,” indicating a profit- or leverage-seeking motive. per D-001
3. CounterPlaintiff contends those statements show the claim was initiated in bad faith, without reasonable basis, and for an improper purpose—namely harassment and personal gain.
4. As a result of responding to this bad-faith lawsuit, CounterPlaintiff has incurred time, stress, and reputational harm.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Abuse of Legal Process
a. Under Part XII Article 2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Abuse of Legal Process occurs when a person (i) initiates or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis, and (ii) that claim causes harm to the defendant.
b. CounterDefendant’s own admissions (“it is” a hustle) establish bad faith and improper purpose.
c. The bad-faith claim has caused demonstrable harm to CounterPlaintiff, satisfying subsection (b).


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
CounterPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Find CounterDefendant in violation of Abuse of Legal Process.
2. Impose the statutory remedy of 100 Civil Penalty Units against CounterDefendant.
3. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper, including costs and fees associated with defending the underlying action.



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 19th day of february, 2026

 

[dearev]

Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days. The court reminds both parties for an option of an ingame trial if both parties agree on one and for the option to end discovery early if both parties concur.

 

[Boykisser]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

Boykisse,
Plaintiff


v.


SalTheMander,
Defendant

1. Failure to State a Claim
The Counterclaim alleges abuse of legal process under Part XII §2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. To prevail, the defendant must show that the original Complaint was:
Filed in bad faith;
Pursued for an improper purpose;
Lacking a reasonable basis; and
Causing measurable harm directly traceable to the filing.
The Counterclaim provides no factual support for any of these elements. Disagreement with a legitimate claim or informal chat messages does not constitute abuse of process. where no evidence of bad faith, improper purpose, or measurable harm existed.

2. Insufficient Evidence of Harm
The defendant claims harm from the filing of the Complaint but provides no measurable evidence beyond ordinary inconvenience or minor stress. Part XII §2 explicitly excludes ordinary burdens from meeting the harm requirement.
By contrast, the original Complaint addresses a documented threat that caused Plaintiff to avoid participation in server events, refrain from certain voice and text channels, and temporarily withdraw from community activities, demonstrating real and quantifiable impact.

3. The Original Complaint Was Reasonable
The Complaint is based on a verifiable verbal threat made by Defendant on 16 February 2026 in the general chat channel:

I’m going to kill you

(16 Feb 2026)

Under the Criminal Code’s Threats provision, a threat is evaluated based on its effect on the recipient, not the speaker’s intent. Even if intended as a joke, the statement caused fear and disrupted Plaintiff’s in-game participation, demonstrating that the Complaint was reasonable and properly filed.

4. Rebuttal of Defendant’s Justifications
The Counterclaim references informal joking messages suggesting the Complaint was unnecessary.
Plaintiff notes:
These messages do not demonstrate bad faith or improper purpose;
They fail to satisfy any element of abuse of process under Part XII §2.5. Summary of Deficiencies
The Counterclaim fails to establish any required element of abuse of process:
Bad faith: No evidence of filing for an improper reason;
Improper purpose: Complaint was filed to address a documented threat;
Lack of reasonable basis: Complaint supported by server logs confirming the threat;
Harm: Defendant offers no measurable harm beyond ordinary inconvenience.

6. Procedural Courtesy
Plaintiff remains respectful of the Defendant’s participation and is committed to resolving this matter according to DCR rules while maintaining the safety and integrity of the community. Dismissing the Counterclaim ensures that the focus remains on legitimate threats, not baseless challenges.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
Dismiss the Counterclaim in its entirety;
Reaffirm the original relief requested in the Complaint, including an in-game apology and any appropriate sanctions; and
Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

Boykisse,
Plaintiff


v.


SalTheMander,
Defendant

1. Failure to State a Claim
The Counterclaim alleges abuse of legal process under Part XII §2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. To prevail, the defendant must show that the original Complaint was:
Filed in bad faith;
Pursued for an improper purpose;
Lacking a reasonable basis; and
Causing measurable harm directly traceable to the filing.
The Counterclaim provides no factual support for any of these elements. Disagreement with a legitimate claim or informal chat messages does not constitute abuse of process. where no evidence of bad faith, improper purpose, or measurable harm existed.

2. Insufficient Evidence of Harm
The defendant claims harm from the filing of the Complaint but provides no measurable evidence beyond ordinary inconvenience or minor stress. Part XII §2 explicitly excludes ordinary burdens from meeting the harm requirement.
By contrast, the original Complaint addresses a documented threat that caused Plaintiff to avoid participation in server events, refrain from certain voice and text channels, and temporarily withdraw from community activities, demonstrating real and quantifiable impact.

3. The Original Complaint Was Reasonable
The Complaint is based on a verifiable verbal threat made by Defendant on 16 February 2026 in the general chat channel:

(16 Feb 2026)

Under the Criminal Code’s Threats provision, a threat is evaluated based on its effect on the recipient, not the speaker’s intent. Even if intended as a joke, the statement caused fear and disrupted Plaintiff’s in-game participation, demonstrating that the Complaint was reasonable and properly filed.

4. Rebuttal of Defendant’s Justifications
The Counterclaim references informal joking messages suggesting the Complaint was unnecessary.
Plaintiff notes:
These messages do not demonstrate bad faith or improper purpose;
They fail to satisfy any element of abuse of process under Part XII §2.5. Summary of Deficiencies
The Counterclaim fails to establish any required element of abuse of process:
Bad faith: No evidence of filing for an improper reason;
Improper purpose: Complaint was filed to address a documented threat;
Lack of reasonable basis: Complaint supported by server logs confirming the threat;
Harm: Defendant offers no measurable harm beyond ordinary inconvenience.

6. Procedural Courtesy
Plaintiff remains respectful of the Defendant’s participation and is committed to resolving this matter according to DCR rules while maintaining the safety and integrity of the community. Dismissing the Counterclaim ensures that the focus remains on legitimate threats, not baseless challenges.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
Dismiss the Counterclaim in its entirety;
Reaffirm the original relief requested in the Complaint, including an in-game apology and any appropriate sanctions; and
Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Defendant has 48 hours to respond to this motion.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I, His Holiness Pope Benetukt, do hereby request to be heard in an Amicus Brief on the differences between "killing" and "murder", especially as established through legal precedent, as this is a matter I am well-versed in.

 

[Boykisser]

Your Honour,
I would like to list the following as Witnesses, to both the trama, and the threats made

Witnesses:
MrNeighbor
RookieBlue

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,
I would like to list the following as Witnesses, to both the trama, and the threats made

Witnesses:
MrNeighbor
RookieBlue

acknowledged.

I, His Holiness Pope Benetukt, do hereby request to be heard in an Amicus Brief on the differences between "killing" and "murder", especially as established through legal precedent, as this is a matter I am well-versed in.

you may do so within 48 hours.

 

[Darklander]

Defendant has 48 hours to respond to this motion.

Your Honor, I request a 12h extension, as I may not be able to respond sensibly by then due to IRL and timezone constraints.

 

[dearev]

Your Honor, I request a 12h extension, as I may not be able to respond sensibly by then due to IRL and timezone constraints.

granted

 

[Darklander]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

Boykisse,
Plaintiff


v.


SalTheMander,
Defendant

1. Failure to State a Claim
The Counterclaim alleges abuse of legal process under Part XII §2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. To prevail, the defendant must show that the original Complaint was:
Filed in bad faith;
Pursued for an improper purpose;
Lacking a reasonable basis; and
Causing measurable harm directly traceable to the filing.
The Counterclaim provides no factual support for any of these elements. Disagreement with a legitimate claim or informal chat messages does not constitute abuse of process. where no evidence of bad faith, improper purpose, or measurable harm existed.

2. Insufficient Evidence of Harm
The defendant claims harm from the filing of the Complaint but provides no measurable evidence beyond ordinary inconvenience or minor stress. Part XII §2 explicitly excludes ordinary burdens from meeting the harm requirement.
By contrast, the original Complaint addresses a documented threat that caused Plaintiff to avoid participation in server events, refrain from certain voice and text channels, and temporarily withdraw from community activities, demonstrating real and quantifiable impact.

3. The Original Complaint Was Reasonable
The Complaint is based on a verifiable verbal threat made by Defendant on 16 February 2026 in the general chat channel:

(16 Feb 2026)

Under the Criminal Code’s Threats provision, a threat is evaluated based on its effect on the recipient, not the speaker’s intent. Even if intended as a joke, the statement caused fear and disrupted Plaintiff’s in-game participation, demonstrating that the Complaint was reasonable and properly filed.

4. Rebuttal of Defendant’s Justifications
The Counterclaim references informal joking messages suggesting the Complaint was unnecessary.
Plaintiff notes:
These messages do not demonstrate bad faith or improper purpose;
They fail to satisfy any element of abuse of process under Part XII §2.5. Summary of Deficiencies
The Counterclaim fails to establish any required element of abuse of process:
Bad faith: No evidence of filing for an improper reason;
Improper purpose: Complaint was filed to address a documented threat;
Lack of reasonable basis: Complaint supported by server logs confirming the threat;
Harm: Defendant offers no measurable harm beyond ordinary inconvenience.

6. Procedural Courtesy
Plaintiff remains respectful of the Defendant’s participation and is committed to resolving this matter according to DCR rules while maintaining the safety and integrity of the community. Dismissing the Counterclaim ensures that the focus remains on legitimate threats, not baseless challenges.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
Dismiss the Counterclaim in its entirety;
Reaffirm the original relief requested in the Complaint, including an in-game apology and any appropriate sanctions; and
Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Response to Motion


Regarding point 1 (Failure to State a Claim):
• The CounterDefendant’s own contemporaneous statements—“i think i found a new law suit[sic]” and, when questioned, “it is” (a hustle)—were made before the alleged threat was even uttered. These admissions, made in public chat, demonstrate a pre-existing intent to locate any pretext for litigation and therefore constitute direct evidence of:
 a) bad faith; and
 b) an improper, profit-motivated purpose.
• A claim filed with such a motive is, by definition, “without reasonable basis” under Part XII §2 of the RCCA when the filer’s primary goal is personal gain rather than redress of a bona fide injury.
• Thus, factual support for every prong of Abuse of Legal Process is already pled; the Motion simply ignores it.

Regarding point 2 (Insufficient Evidence of Harm):
• Harm need not be strictly monetary; reputational damage, compelled appearance in court, and the burden of defending against a knowingly baseless action are repeatedly recognised by Redmont precedent as “measurable harm.”
• Here, CounterDefendant publicly demanded an out-of-court settlement in the same magnitude (≈100 PU) as the statutory penalty for Abuse of Legal Process, turning the justice system into leverage for personal enrichment. Such extortionate demands, coupled with litigation costs and reputational smearing, transcend “ordinary inconvenience.”
• Moreover, permitting bad-faith suits to proceed harms not only CounterPlaintiff but the integrity of the Court—an institutional harm Part XII §2 of the RCCA was enacted to prevent.

Regarding point 3 (The Original Complaint Was Reasonable):
• Part V §4 requires that a threat be “communication to cause fear or force action.” Intent, therefore, matters; Plaintiff’s own cavalier attitude (“a hustle”) refutes any genuine fear and undercuts the statutory element.
• Plaintiff’s pre-litigation hunt for “a new lawsuit” shows the Complaint was the vehicle, not the destination. This conduct renders the filing unreasonable regardless of whether the quoted words appeared in chat.

Regarding point 4 (Rebuttal of Defendant’s Justifications):
• The Motion characterises the “hustle” messages as “informal joking.” That is a factual dispute inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss; credibility determinations are for trial.
• Even if “joking,” the remarks evince subjective intent inconsistent with good-faith resort to the courts and therefore satisfy Part XII §2(a).

Regarding point 5 (Summary of Deficiencies):
a) Bad faith: Admitted by CounterDefendant (“it is” a hustle).
b) Improper purpose: Pre-threat lawsuit hunt and exorbitant public settlement demand.
c) No reasonable basis: Complaint engineered before any supposed injury.
d) Harm: Litigation costs, reputational damage, and coercive settlement pressure—well beyond routine inconvenience.

Regarding point 6 (Procedural Courtesy):
• Dismissing a well-pled counterclaim would incentivise precisely the vexatious behaviour Part XII §2 deters. Maintaining the Counterclaim protects both the CounterPlaintiff and the Court’s docket from abuse.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, CounterPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
1. DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim in its entirety;
2. Permit the Counterclaim for Abuse of Legal Process to proceed to discovery and adjudication; and
3. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

I thank the Court for its attention.


By stating that
a) The Plaintiff was actively seeking a lawsuit to file before the alleged threat, evidencing bad faith;
b) Allowing a bad-faith filing to continue harms the integrity of the judiciary and the CounterPlaintiff; and
c) The CounterDefendant publicly demanded an exorbitant settlement on par with the statutory civil penalty, demonstrating improper purpose and measurable harm.

 

[Darklander]

Your Honor, I intend to introduce evidence regarding some of the claims made in the answer to motion.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

My apologies, I have been very busy lately and was not able to meet the 48 hour time limit. I retract my request.

 

[Darklander]

Your honor, you have not requested a response to the counterclaim.

 

[dearev]

Your honor, you have not requested a response to the counterclaim.

Apologies, ive been severely busy. I will look over this today.

 

[dearev]

Your Honor, I intend to introduce evidence regarding some of the claims made in the answer to motion.

you may. please do so within 48 hours after that a ruling on the MTD will follow.

 

[Darklander]

EVIDENCE

D-002: As to the request for of the counterplantiff for an out of court settlement in public for 6700$

Spoiler: D-002

D-003: Plantiff/Counterdefendant exaggerates claim (after publicly offering and then backing off on a settlement my client considered and accepted)

Spoiler: D-003

D-004: Plantiff/Counterdefendant accepts an out-of-court settlement and calls it off after the settlement is paid

Spoiler: D-004

D-005: Plantiff/Counterdefendant claims the "trama [sic]" has caused him to go on a week break due to the "threats against his life"

Spoiler: D-005

D-006: Plantiff/Counterdefendant's level of acvitity in the main DC discord server after the date in which they claimed to have gone on a "week break" due to the alleged threats

Spoiler: D-006

The Defense believes these also speak to the state of mind of the Plantiff/Counterdefendant

 

[Darklander]

Your honor, I must amend the evidence the Defense has submitted. I have used the Plantiff's numbering in both the above post and the original Answer to Complaint, and for this clerical error I request authorization to fix it.

 

[dearev]

Your honor, I must amend the evidence the Defense has submitted. I have used the Plantiff's numbering in both the above post and the original Answer to Complaint, and for this clerical error I request authorization to fix it.

You may

 

[Boykisser]

EVIDENCE

D-002: As to the request for of the counterplantiff for an out of court settlement in public for 6700$

Spoiler: D-002

D-003: Plantiff/Counterdefendant exaggerates claim (after publicly offering and then backing off on a settlement my client considered and accepted)

Spoiler: D-003

D-004: Plantiff/Counterdefendant accepts an out-of-court settlement and calls it off after the settlement is paid

Spoiler: D-004

D-005: Plantiff/Counterdefendant claims the "trama [sic]" has caused him to go on a week break due to the "threats against his life"

Spoiler: D-005

D-006: Plantiff/Counterdefendant's level of acvitity in the main DC discord server after the date in which they claimed to have gone on a "week break" due to the alleged threats

Spoiler: D-006

The Defense believes these also speak to the state of mind of the Plantiff/Counterdefendant

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

Motion to Strike

Boykisse,
Plaintiff,


v.


SalTheMander,
Defendant.

Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to strike specified portions of the Defendant’s most recent filing as irrelevant, immaterial, and impertinent to the issues before the Court namely:

whether a legally cognizable in-game threat was made; and
whether such threat caused fear affecting participation.

Material that does not bear on these issues risks confusing the record and prejudicing the proceedings. Accordingly, the following portions should be stricken.

D-002 Should be stricken

A. The Alleged "6700 stattlemant request" was Hyperbloic
1. The referenced statement cannot reasonably be construed by an objective observer as a genuine settlement demand.
2. The maximum statutory penalty at issue is 100 in costs.
3. The cited figure exceeds that amount by more than sixty-seven times.
4. An amount so disproportionate to any available remedy would be understood as exaggerated or jocular rather than a serious legal proposal.

B. Hyperbole and Jokes Do Not Constitute Settlement Offers
1. valid settlement offer requires clear intent to form a binding agreement. Obvious exaggeration or joking lacks such intent and carries no legal effect.
2. Casual or humorous figures stated in informal chat particularly those wildly disproportionate to any possible remedy cannot reasonably be treated as settlement conduct.

C. The Statement is irrelevant to the Elements of the Claim
1. Whether Plaintiff jokingly referenced a fictional settlement amount has no bearing on:
2. whether a legally cognizable threat was made;
3. whether any threat caused fear or disruption; or
4. whether Plaintiff acted in good faith in filing the complaint.

D. Inclusion Risks Prejudice and Confusion
Presenting an obviously joking remark as a genuine demand shifts focus from legally significant facts to informal banter and invites consideration of matters unrelated to the issues before the Court.

Accordingly, the reference in D-002 alleging Plaintiff requested ₶6700 for settlement should be stricken.

D-003 Should be Sticked

A. The Alleged Settlements Remark Was Not a Real Proposal
As discussed above, the cited remark was hyperbolic and cannot reasonably be treated as a serious settlement offer.

B. Mischaracterization of Plaintiff's intent is immaterial
D-003 attempts to portray the remark as evidence of Plaintiff’s intent or state of mind. This is impertinent because:
1. no binding offer or agreement existed; and
2. the comment was not a serious contractual proposal.
3. This argument diverts attention from the central issue of whether an in-game threat occurred.

C. References to Memes, Images, or Informal Metaphors Are Irrelevant
2. Assertions tied to memes, images, or informal metaphors that do not affect the legal elements of the claim are immaterial and do not assist the Court.

D. Mischaracterization of Language
1. D-003 reinterprets Plaintiff’s language including a metaphor involving “family” in a manner that misstates its meaning and risks confusing the record.

E. The Alleged "Family Threat" Reflects Contextual Misunderstanding
1. The Defense’s reference to “death threats against me and my family” arises from a contextual misunderstanding and does not bear on the elements of the threat claim.

D-005 And D-006 Should be Stricken

The Defense relies on these portions to suggest Plaintiff’s statement about taking a “week break due to threats” was insincere or exaggerated. This characterization is misleading and irrelevant.

A. The "Week Break" Referred to Gameplay, Not Discord Chat
1. Plaintiff’s statement concerned participation in the game environment, which is the only context in which the alleged threat could be carried out.
2. The alleged danger existed within gameplay.
Avoiding gameplay was the relevant safety measure.
3. Remaining in Discord text channels does not contradict avoiding gameplay.

B. Discord Presemce Is Not Participation in the Threaten Environment
The Defense improperly equates Discord activity with continued participation. However:
1. reading or sending messages is not gameplay;
2. administrative or social communication may continue while avoiding gameplay; and
3. avoiding the environment where harm could occur is consistent with safety concerns.
4. This distinction renders reliance on Discord activity immaterial.

C. Timeline Mischaracterization
The Defense’s presentation of messages misstates chronology:
1. statements about taking a break appear after the referenced date;
2. this supports, rather than contradicts, Plaintiff’s avoidance of gameplay; and
3. no evidence shows gameplay participation during the stated break.
4. Material that misrepresents chronology risks misleading the Court and should be stricken.

D. Irrelevance to the Elements of the Claim
Discord activity does not address:
1. whether a threat was made;
2. whether the threat was credible in the gameplay context; or
3. whether Plaintiff reasonably altered gameplay participation due to fear.

Because D-005 and D-006 do not assist in resolving these questions, they are immaterial and impertinent.

​

Relife Requested
The, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
GRANT this Motion to Strike the irrelevant and immaterial portions of the Defense filing;
ORDER that the challenged material be removed from consideration as though never part of the record; and
GRANT any further relief the Court deems just and proper.