Lawsuit: In Session DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

[Staff Team]

Writ of Summons

@DocsTheory @staff are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Doctheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

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.

Present. Please ping @End on all responses required.

 

[ko531]

As the witnesses are now present, the plaintiff may now question them. Questions should be asked in the next 24 hours and witnesses should respond within 24 hours of questions being asked.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Does the defense concur?

We do not, Your Honor.

 

[Patototongo1]

Your Honor,

Counsel for the Plaintiff respectfully requests a 24 hour extension to the current questioning period. Due to unforeseen personal circumstances, I will be away from my computer and unable to participate for the entorety of the day.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

Counsel for the Plaintiff respectfully requests a 24 hour extension to the current questioning period. Due to unforeseen personal circumstances, I will be away from my computer and unable to participate for the entorety of the day.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
Counsel for the Plaintiff

Granted.

 

[Patototongo1]

@End

Good morning, I’m Patototongo1, counsel for the Plaintiff. I’ll be asking you a few questions regarding the events and procedures relevant to this case.

First of all, Can you confirm your role within the Staff Team at the time of the events in question?

 

[End]

server co-owner

 

[Patototongo1]

@End

For the sake of efficiency, I’ll be presenting all of my questions in a single block below:

1. Are you familiar with the procedures used to jail and unjail players on the server?
2. Does the Staff Team utilize any plugins or automated tools to administer jail sentences?
3. To your knowledge, are these tools capable of misapplying or extending sentences beyond statutory limits?
4. Are logs or records maintained of jail sentences and the time served by players?
5. Does the Staff Team play any role in monitoring the length of time a player remains jailed?
6. In a typical case, if a player is jailed erroneously or beyond the legal sentence, what is the standard procedure for review or correction?
7. Was DocTheory’s sentence or jail duration ever brought to your or the staff team's attention prior to March 25th? If so, by who?
8. Who authorized or processed DocTheory’s release from jail on March 25th?
9. Was any internal discussion or investigation held regarding the length of DocTheory’s sentence? If so, could you share with the court what those discussions looked like?
10. To your knowledge, was the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involved in initiating DocTheory’s jail sentence?
11. Is Exhibit D-011 accurate in stating that only the DHS Secretary can request that a player be unjailed?
12. Can you confirm whether a formal unjail request was ever received from the DHS Secretary in relation to DocTheory? If so, could you share this request with the court?
13. If such a request was never made by the DHS Secretary, on what authority or instruction was DocTheory released?
14. Would the Staff Team have released DocTheory earlier if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner?
15. In your view, does the failure to receive such a request explain the extended duration of DocTheory’s jail time?
    
    
    
    The Plaintiff thanks you for your time and cooperation, and respectfully reserves the right to pose follow-up questions at the discretion of the Court.​