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

[AmityBlamity]

@DocsTheory

1. How much in-game playtime did you spend in prison?
2. At any point during your incarceration did you escape from prison?
3. In D-009, you are quoted as saying "can lie dont care if the jailtime is longer". Can you provide context to this statement?
4. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?
5. To the best of your knowledge, did your previous counsel, Angryhamhog and Kaiserin_, provide your current counsel, Patototongo1, with all documents, evidence, communications, and anything else they had collected that was relevant to this case?
6. Do you recall who you killed during the Christmas event?
7. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?

The defense reserves the right to ask additional questions.

 

[Patototongo1]

The Plaintiff would like to tender the following additional witnesses:
2. Angryhamdog (DHS Secretary)
3. Staff

Your honor,

It seems previous council did add another witness to the witness list during discovery (Lawsuit: In Session - DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42) who was not issued a writ of summons at the beginning of questioning, the Plaintiff would like to bring this issue to the court’s attention and respectfully request that a writ of summons be issued for the individual Angryhamdog to amend this oversight.

[Edited to fix issue with link]

 

[Patototongo1]

The plaintiff retracts the request.

 

[Patototongo1]

5. To the best of your knowledge, did your previous counsel, Angryhamhog and Kaiserin_, provide your current counsel, Patototongo1, with all documents, evidence, communications, and anything else they had collected that was relevant to this case?

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

4. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?

7. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 

[Patototongo1]

3. In D-009, you are quoted as saying "can lie dont care if the jailtime is longer". Can you provide context to this statement?

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Motion

Response to Objection

Your Honor, you'll note I prefaced the question with "to the best of your knowledge". Regardless, it is absolutely reasonable to assume plaintiff has some idea as to what his counsel shared amongst one another. Furthermore, this inquiry does not risk breaching attorney-client privilege. All we require from the plaintiff is a yes or no response. We are not asking for specifics in regards to the documents.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Response

Response to Objection

Your Honor, as you are no doubt aware, more direct questioning is allowed on cross-examination. Regardless, this objection, as plaintiff's counsel is fond of saying, is entirely without merit. The question “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” isn't calling for a conclusion, because one was made by plaintiff himself. The question seeks to clarify why they thought this. Likewise, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” is purely based on the facts. Plaintiff was arrested on December 22nd, and, to the best of the defense's knowledge, only contacted the DHS on March 3rd. We are not looking for subjective reasoning, but the solid facts that fill in the gaps.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Response

Response to Objection

Your Honor, Oxford Languages defines context as "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood". Plaintiff's counsel is attempting to muddy the waters and attempt to make our simple question more vague than it actually is.

 

[ko531]

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Sustained. The information is protected by attorney-client privilege especially with the adding of "To the best of your knowledge" as any knowledge used to answer this question would only be received from communications with the plaintiff and their counsel. The question will be struck.

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Overruled. The witnesses is qualified to state reasoning or opinions for their own actions or statements. The questions are also not after opinions directly but the factual cause of the plaintiff's statements and actions.

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Sustained. please rephrase the question.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Sustained. The information is protected by attorney-client privilege especially with the adding of "To the best of your knowledge" as any knowledge used to answer this question would only be received from communications with the plaintiff and their counsel. The question will be struck.



Overruled. The witnesses is qualified to state reasoning or opinions for their own actions or statements. The questions are also not after opinions directly but the factual cause of the plaintiff's statements and actions.



Sustained. please rephrase the question.

Your Honor, for the sake of avoiding prolonged testimony, the defense will be retracting question 3 entirely. We retain the right to ask additional questions dependant on the plaintiff's answers.

 

[ko531]

@DocsTheory please answer questions 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 in the next 24 hours or be held in contempt.

 

[DocsTheory]

1. How much in-game playtime did you spend in prison?,

At least 76 hours

1. At any point during your incarceration did you escape from prison?,

In line with Const. 32(5), I choose to invoke the fifth charter right.

1. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?,

My attorney was told in the ticket with the DHS that it was likely to be a glitch.

1. Do you recall who you killed during the Christmas event?,

In line with Const. 32(5), I choose to invoke the fifth charter right.

1. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?,

At the time of the arrest I was not playing DC, I quit for a year and only came back for a brief play session during the Christmas event.

 

[ko531]

Does the defense have any follow up questions?

 

[gribble19]

1. How much in-game playtime did you spend in prison?,

At least 76 hours

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The question was how much in-game playtime was spent in prison, the witness has failed to provide a number and has instead given a lower bound, which was not asked for. The witness should provide an exact number to answer the question, to the best of their ability.

1. At any point during your incarceration did you escape from prison?,

In line with Const. 32(5), I choose to invoke the fifth charter right.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The witness has not answered the question. Escaping from prison is not a crime, and therefore answering the question could not possibly incriminate the witness, they should not be able to invoke the fifth charter right.

 

[gribble19]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case concerns the unlawful deprivation of liberty and the failure of the Commonwealth to remedy an acknowledged injustice. The Plaintiff, DocTheory, was sentenced on December 22, 2024, to nearly seven days of in-game incarceration—a total of over 8,400 minutes—for the offense of logging out while handcuffed, a violation classified under § 4.(6) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act as Resisting Arrest, which is a summary offense carrying only a $100 fine and absolutely no jail time.

No trial was held. No judicial discretion was exercised. Due process was not upheld; this is a fact. If nothing else, the court will find this. A clear violation of the Plaintiff's rights under § IV.(32)(9) of the Constitution. Additionally it is paramount to note that the punishment was automatically imposed, no judicial action was attempted by the government subsequent to the sentencing, and the punishment far exceeded what the law prescribes.

After receiving this sentence, the Plaintiff promptly reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security and clearly continued to raise concern both through direct channels and publicly. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth took no corrective action during the Plaintiff’s incarceration. The defense has provided no evidence of corrective action being taken by the government. The Plaintiff ultimately served 5 days and 18 minutes of in-game jail time—or approximately 140 hours—while the defense denies this, they have failed to provide concrete evidence or an alternative figure. In contrast, the Plaintiff has submitted clear documentation of the time served. As well, the Department of Homeland Security has not provided an explanation to the Plaintiff for the release on March 25, 2025. The government has failed to justify itself on this date, and why the plaintiff was not released sooner.

The defense has claimed the sentence was the result of a plugin error, yet no evidence has been produced to confirm the nature of that error, its cause, or whether appropriate safeguards were in place to prevent such an outcome. Moreover, the government has failed to provide any technical justification or explanation supporting the existence or mechanics of this alleged plugin failure, and as such, has not cleared itself of responsibility.
Even if a technical error did occur, the law remains clear: under the Standardized Criminal Code Act § 4.2.(c). (emphasis mine),



Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to liberty, as enshrined in § IV.(32)(14) of the Constitution, was violated when the government failed to intervene or rectify the improper sentence—despite being made aware of it (the awareness being a fact the defense has not denied). In addition to statutory damages, the Plaintiff also suffered measurable financial and participatory harm, having been unable to engage in professional, political, or civic life during the entirety of his imprisonment.

This Court will see that:

• The Plaintiff was sentenced for a summary offense that does not warrant incarceration;
• The Plaintiff was not found guilty of any offense justifying his sentence;
• The Commonwealth was made aware of the situation and no action was taken by any party until well after the harm had occurred;
• And that under established law and precedent, including GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11, the Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

This is not a matter of policy disagreement or technicality. It is a straightforward application of statutory law and constitutional protections. The Plaintiff asks the Court to enforce those protections, as written, and grant the appropriate remedies for the harm sustained.

Nothing further at this time,
Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 10 June 2025.

Objection

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

Plaintiff in their Opening Stated states that "After receiving this sentence, the Plaintiff promptly reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security". Your Honor, this is a lie and a misrepresentation of facts. The Plaintiff reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security on the 3rd of March 2025 and received the sentence on the 22nd of December 2024. It took the Plaintiff 71 days to report the issue to the Department of Homeland Security. This is by no means "promptly" and describing it as such is a clear misrepresentation of facts. In order for Perjury to be apparent, it needs to be established that the misrepresentation is intentional. We therefore point to the following: The answer to the 7th question asked clearly shows that Plaintiff is, was, and has been well aware of the dates on which the sentence was received, and the date on which the report happened. Furthermore, the date of sentencing has been established as a fact within the case (See II.1 of the Complaint and I.1 of the Answer to the Complaint) and the date on which the report happened is part of the evidence of this case (See P-008, P-009, P-010). It is clear that the Plaintiff was aware of this, and intentionally misrepresented the facts in their opening statement.

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court find the Plaintiff guilty of Perjury and punishes them accordingly.

 

[gribble19]

Does the defense have any follow up questions?

The Defendant would like to reserve the right to ask follow-up questions based on the rulings on the objections and the potentially amended answers given by the witness.

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The question was how much in-game playtime was spent in prison, the witness has failed to provide a number and has instead given a lower bound, which was not asked for. The witness should provide an exact number to answer the question, to the best of their ability.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The witness has not answered the question. Escaping from prison is not a crime, and therefore answering the question could not possibly incriminate the witness, they should not be able to invoke the fifth charter right.

OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE
Sustained. @DocsTheory please answer to the best of your ability the total amount of time you spent in prison

OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE
Sustained. @DocsTheory please answer question 2

Objection

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

Plaintiff in their Opening Stated states that "After receiving this sentence, the Plaintiff promptly reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security". Your Honor, this is a lie and a misrepresentation of facts. The Plaintiff reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security on the 3rd of March 2025 and received the sentence on the 22nd of December 2024. It took the Plaintiff 71 days to report the issue to the Department of Homeland Security. This is by no means "promptly" and describing it as such is a clear misrepresentation of facts. In order for Perjury to be apparent, it needs to be established that the misrepresentation is intentional. We therefore point to the following: The answer to the 7th question asked clearly shows that Plaintiff is, was, and has been well aware of the dates on which the sentence was received, and the date on which the report happened. Furthermore, the date of sentencing has been established as a fact within the case (See II.1 of the Complaint and I.1 of the Answer to the Complaint) and the date on which the report happened is part of the evidence of this case (See P-008, P-009, P-010). It is clear that the Plaintiff was aware of this, and intentionally misrepresented the facts in their opening statement.

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court find the Plaintiff guilty of Perjury and punishes them accordingly.

Sustained. @Patototongo1 will be charged with perjury for the false statement.