Lawsuit: In Session emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

1. My name is Caldiron Jon Un or .CaldironJa1, I am the founder of Sagarana bookstore located at the ground floor of c135. This plot is known as Reveille Autonomous Space, part of the Federation of Autonomous Spaces wich I'm the current secretary.
2. Since June 2025
3. As founder of Sagarana, I hire writers to create original in game books, review their drafts and publish copies for sale. As Secretary of FAS, I'm responsible for recruiting new members, organize the Union activities such as voting and ocupation of workspaces, residential and comercial rooms in all associated plots.
4. I advertised extensively that month Sagarana as place for writers to prosper, many writers including emmythegremlin showed up. Emmy got interested by the FAS Union organization and applied to be a member in order to acess the 3rd floor exclusive to members. After the application passed, she was assigned the office next to mine so she could do her work and acess my personal archive for research.
5. There was a visible sign right at the 3rd floor's entrance warning that was a members-only space.
6. Sagarana Bookstore was advertised many times as open to anyone, but it's facilities occupies just the ground floor of c135, in front of the property elevator there's signs indicating the bookstore is at the ground floor. The other floors were never advertised.
7. Only members of FAS Union are expressly allowed to acess internal workspaces, warehouses or apartaments.
8. No, never.
9. They submit their finished work into our Publisher shelf, the work is reviewed and payment is instantly made. Simple and direct, the only restrain is deliverying a finished book.
10. Yes, she was writing books about DC's History.
11. Yes. This is a lectern for display only inside my personal office. It contains a books gifted by president Technofied containing a copy of the first ever presidential interview made with former president xEndeavour in the first year of the server.
The word "babado" is a Brazillian queer-slang for something intense and exciting. Like fire, wild and juicy.
12. If a player is killed while writing a book, all the progress made before closing the book is lost.
13. I noticed the evidences of the crime at the 3rd floor.
14. Yes, I banned roy from any FAS related property after the incident and other atacks in the past. I've had already banned him from i036 for killing me while I was building and making the evidences interupt the building process.
15. Writing books in game require some time to craft the formatting adequate for Minecraft books. I noticed a delay from emmythegremlin wich messed some of our schedules for her work.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 | [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO WITNESS .CaldironJa1

Plaintiff respectfully submits the following follow-up questions to the direct examination testimony of witness .CaldironJa1 (Post #102).

Q16. Plaintiff's Exhibit P-007 is the server chat log file designated 2026-02-20-3.txt, which records in-game messages from February 20, 2026. Separate from the display lectern you described, do you recognise the written communications recorded in that log file as authentic messages that passed between you and the Plaintiff on that date?

Q17. To your knowledge, was the Defendant, roy405, ever a member of the FAS Union at any time?

Q18. Was the 3rd floor of c135, where the Plaintiff's assigned workspace was located, accessible to non-members of the FAS Union in any capacity?

Q19. You mentioned a visible sign at the 3rd floor entrance indicating it was a members-only space. What did that sign say?

Q19b. Was that sign visible to a person arriving at the 3rd floor by elevator?

Q20. You stated that you noticed evidence of the crime at the 3rd floor. Please describe specifically what you personally observed when you arrived at the scene, including what you saw, the state of the workspace, and any other details relevant to what had occurred.

Q21. Based on your own personal observation at the scene, was any completed written work by the Plaintiff present in the workspace following the incident?

Q22. What was the total agreed payment to the Plaintiff for the literary work she had been commissioned to produce?

Q23. You mentioned that you had previously banned the Defendant from property i036 following an incident in which he killed you while you were building. Please describe the circumstances of that incident and approximately when it occurred.

Q24. You mentioned a delay in emmythegremlin's work that affected your schedules. Approximately how much additional time was required to complete the commissioned work as a result of that delay?

Q24b. Was the commissioned work ultimately delivered?

Clerk Note: Q16 struck by Court; see Post No. 113.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
xXTheoryXx said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 | [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO WITNESS .CaldironJa1

Plaintiff respectfully submits the following follow-up questions to the direct examination testimony of witness .CaldironJa1 (Post #102).

Q16. Plaintiff's Exhibit P-007 is the server chat log file designated 2026-02-20-3.txt, which records in-game messages from February 20, 2026. Separate from the display lectern you described, do you recognise the written communications recorded in that log file as authentic messages that passed between you and the Plaintiff on that date?

Q17. To your knowledge, was the Defendant, roy405, ever a member of the FAS Union at any time?

Q18. Was the 3rd floor of c135, where the Plaintiff's assigned workspace was located, accessible to non-members of the FAS Union in any capacity?

Q19. You mentioned a visible sign at the 3rd floor entrance indicating it was a members-only space. What did that sign say?

Q19b. Was that sign visible to a person arriving at the 3rd floor by elevator?

Q20. You stated that you noticed evidence of the crime at the 3rd floor. Please describe specifically what you personally observed when you arrived at the scene, including what you saw, the state of the workspace, and any other details relevant to what had occurred.

Q21. Based on your own personal observation at the scene, was any completed written work by the Plaintiff present in the workspace following the incident?

Q22. What was the total agreed payment to the Plaintiff for the literary work she had been commissioned to produce?

Q23. You mentioned that you had previously banned the Defendant from property i036 following an incident in which he killed you while you were building. Please describe the circumstances of that incident and approximately when it occurred.

Q24. You mentioned a delay in emmythegremlin's work that affected your schedules. Approximately how much additional time was required to complete the commissioned work as a result of that delay?

Q24b. Was the commissioned work ultimately delivered?
Click to expand...

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Questions were about 4 hours late.

 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Questions were about 4 hours late.

Click to expand...


Plaintiff acknowledges the four-hour delay and apologises to the Court. However, the Defense suffers no prejudice, their 24-hour objection window has not yet begun to run and they remain in the same position as if the questions were filed on time. Striking the questions entirely would be disproportionate to a de minimis procedural overshoot. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court accept the filing and allow proceedings to continue.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Questions were about 4 hours late.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The objection is noted. The Counsel (@xXTheoryXx) who was tardy in submitting the question is warned to strictly adhere to deadlines in this case going forward.
 
Your honor, it is unclear to me if these questions are to be struck due to the sustained objection or not.

If not, I wish to file the following objections.



xXTheoryXx said:
Q16. Plaintiff's Exhibit P-007 is the server chat log file designated 2026-02-20-3.txt, which records in-game messages from February 20, 2026. Separate from the display lectern you described, do you recognise the written communications recorded in that log file as authentic messages that passed between you and the Plaintiff on that date?
Click to expand...

Objection


COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING / LEADING QUESTION

Counsel is attempting to tell the witness what they're looking at, perhaps in an attempt to sway them into a false memory.



xXTheoryXx said:
Q23. You mentioned that you had previously banned the Defendant from property i036 following an incident in which he killed you while you were building. Please describe the circumstances of that incident and approximately when it occurred.
Click to expand...

Objection


RELEVANCE

i036 is not related to the incident(s) in this case. Neither is the Defendant's past.

 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, it is unclear to me if these questions are to be struck due to the sustained objection or not.

If not, I wish to file the following objections.




Objection


COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING / LEADING QUESTION

Counsel is attempting to tell the witness what they're looking at, perhaps in an attempt to sway them into a false memory.




Objection


RELEVANCE

i036 is not related to the incident(s) in this case. Neither is the Defendant's past.

Click to expand...


COUNTER - COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING / LEADING QUESTION (Q16)

Identifying a marked exhibit by its file designation before asking a witness to authenticate it is standard foundational procedure, not testimony. The question does not suggest an answer, it asks the witness whether he recognises the communications, which he may confirm or deny. This is the proper and required method for authenticating documentary evidence. The objection should be overruled.

COUNTER - RELEVANCE (Q23)

The prior incident at i036 is directly relevant to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. To establish that punitive damages are warranted, Plaintiff must demonstrate the Defendant's conduct was malicious or part of a pattern. A prior killing by the same Defendant against the same property owner at a related property is precisely the kind of prior conduct evidence that establishes that pattern. The question is relevant and should be permitted.
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, it is unclear to me if these questions are to be struck due to the sustained objection or not.

If not, I wish to file the following objections.




Objection


COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING / LEADING QUESTION

Counsel is attempting to tell the witness what they're looking at, perhaps in an attempt to sway them into a false memory.




Objection


RELEVANCE

i036 is not related to the incident(s) in this case. Neither is the Defendant's past.

Click to expand...
xXTheoryXx said:
COUNTER - COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING / LEADING QUESTION (Q16)

Identifying a marked exhibit by its file designation before asking a witness to authenticate it is standard foundational procedure, not testimony. The question does not suggest an answer, it asks the witness whether he recognises the communications, which he may confirm or deny. This is the proper and required method for authenticating documentary evidence. The objection should be overruled.

COUNTER - RELEVANCE (Q23)

The prior incident at i036 is directly relevant to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. To establish that punitive damages are warranted, Plaintiff must demonstrate the Defendant's conduct was malicious or part of a pattern. A prior killing by the same Defendant against the same property owner at a related property is precisely the kind of prior conduct evidence that establishes that pattern. The question is relevant and should be permitted.
Click to expand...
The Court did not strike the questions. We sustained Defendant’s objection that they were late and we warned Plaintiff’s counsel to timely file.

Objection Q16 — Sustained as to leading. "Do you recognize X as Y" is includes information the examiner seeks to confirm; ask open questions. Question shall be stricken.

Question Q23 — Overruled. Potential probative value regarding the general circumstances of the alleged civil violation.
 
xXTheoryXx said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 | [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO WITNESS .CaldironJa1

Plaintiff respectfully submits the following follow-up questions to the direct examination testimony of witness .CaldironJa1 (Post #102).

Q16. Plaintiff's Exhibit P-007 is the server chat log file designated 2026-02-20-3.txt, which records in-game messages from February 20, 2026. Separate from the display lectern you described, do you recognise the written communications recorded in that log file as authentic messages that passed between you and the Plaintiff on that date?

Q17. To your knowledge, was the Defendant, roy405, ever a member of the FAS Union at any time?

Q18. Was the 3rd floor of c135, where the Plaintiff's assigned workspace was located, accessible to non-members of the FAS Union in any capacity?

Q19. You mentioned a visible sign at the 3rd floor entrance indicating it was a members-only space. What did that sign say?

Q19b. Was that sign visible to a person arriving at the 3rd floor by elevator?

Q20. You stated that you noticed evidence of the crime at the 3rd floor. Please describe specifically what you personally observed when you arrived at the scene, including what you saw, the state of the workspace, and any other details relevant to what had occurred.

Q21. Based on your own personal observation at the scene, was any completed written work by the Plaintiff present in the workspace following the incident?

Q22. What was the total agreed payment to the Plaintiff for the literary work she had been commissioned to produce?

Q23. You mentioned that you had previously banned the Defendant from property i036 following an incident in which he killed you while you were building. Please describe the circumstances of that incident and approximately when it occurred.

Q24. You mentioned a delay in emmythegremlin's work that affected your schedules. Approximately how much additional time was required to complete the commissioned work as a result of that delay?

Q24b. Was the commissioned work ultimately delivered?

Clerk Note: Q16 struck by Court; see Post No. 113.
Click to expand...
@.CaldironJa1 please answer the questions in the next 24 hours, excluding the question struck through.
 
Oh shoot, no one dm-ed me about this. May I have more 24 hours? Again, I'm sorry for the mismatch with my schedule
 
Franciscus said:
Sure.
Click to expand...
@.CaldironJa1: You are ordered to answer the questions as instructed in Post No. 114 on pain of contempt. If you do not do so within 24 hours of this post, I will hold you in contempt, with an additional contempt charge coming every 6 hours thereafter until you answer them.
 
Q.17 No, he was never invited nor applied for membership
Q. 18 Only the anteroom and hallway was acessible to the public by elevator.
Q. 19 The content of the sign changed during the plot renovations, currently it displays "Only FAS Mebers can rent those rooms", but I recall it displaying "FAS Member's Only" during the incident.
Q. 19b Yes, it's displayed in front of the exit before the hallway.
Q. 20 I can't remember exactly in what room I've found a clue left behind, but I remember seeing my office and emmy's door open and assumed she was working on both rooms. Also, a rotten flesh named "Your Rotten Remains" was left behind as well. I kept as evidence since I already witnessed roy using this subterfuge in his executions.
Q. 21 No, the completed work came to my hands some days later the incident.
Q.22 I've paid emmythegremlin 1500$ for her literary and research work.
Q.23 I believe this was around January 16 2026, I even asked in legal chat if anything could be done legally agains't him at the time. He repeatedly killed me while I was building and working with redstone, the clues produced mingled into the construction interrupting the process until a Detective could erase it for me. This made me lost many hours of my vacation, time I do not dispose currently.
Q.24 I believe even with the incident, emmy was pretty fast in delivering the work in less than a week.
Q. 24b yes.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 | [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO WITNESS .CaldironJa1

Plaintiff respectfully submits the following follow-up questions to the direct examination testimony of witness .CaldironJa1.

Q25. When the Plaintiff delivered the completed 22-page work to you, did that delivered work include content that had to be rewritten because of what was lost when she was killed on February 20, 2026?


Q26. You stated that the "Your Rotten Remains" item left at the scene was a subterfuge you had previously witnessed the Defendant use in executions. On approximately how many separate occasions have you personally witnessed the Defendant employ this method?
 
xXTheoryXx said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 | [2026] DCR 24

PLAINTIFF'S FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO WITNESS .CaldironJa1

Plaintiff respectfully submits the following follow-up questions to the direct examination testimony of witness .CaldironJa1.

Q25. When the Plaintiff delivered the completed 22-page work to you, did that delivered work include content that had to be rewritten because of what was lost when she was killed on February 20, 2026?


Q26. You stated that the "Your Rotten Remains" item left at the scene was a subterfuge you had previously witnessed the Defendant use in executions. On approximately how many separate occasions have you personally witnessed the Defendant employ this method?
Click to expand...
@.CaldironJa1 please answer these questions in the next 24 hours
 
Q25. I can't answer that question, since it refers to emmy's labor and not something I oversee actively, only when shared directly by the employee. But I believe it was implicit that she had to re-do the lost excerpts.
Q26. I witnessed this 3 times. Agains't myself, agains't my boyfriend SailorSatan and against Emmy.
 
Franciscus said:
Any further questions?
Click to expand...
Seeing none, we will move to closing statements. The Court will attach the discord Questioning of witness IamJeb_ into the case record.

Plaintiff’s closing statement is due in 72 hours from the time of this post.
 
For @.CaldironJa1

1. Did you read the in-game book (for clarity, I am referring to the book which allegedly lost progress due to the Plaintiff's death) prior to the death of the Plaintiff?



For IamJeb_
1. Did you read the in-game book (for clarity, I am referring to the book which allegedly lost progress due to the Plaintiff's death) prior to the death of the Plaintiff?

There will be follow-up questions.
 
Dartanboy said:
For @.CaldironJa1

1. Did you read the in-game book (for clarity, I am referring to the book which allegedly lost progress due to the Plaintiff's death) prior to the death of the Plaintiff?



For IamJeb_
1. Did you read the in-game book (for clarity, I am referring to the book which allegedly lost progress due to the Plaintiff's death) prior to the death of the Plaintiff?

There will be follow-up questions.
Click to expand...


Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE / BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Re: Cross-Examination of Witness .CaldironJa1, Question 1 (Post #128)

The Defendant asks whether .CaldironJa1 personally read the in-progress book prior to the Plaintiff's death. This question has no bearing on any matter to which .CaldironJa1's testimony is directed. His direct examination concerned the authorisation and workspace arrangement at plot c135, the commercial commission and payment of DC$1,500, the membership-only character of the 3rd floor, the ban notice issued to the Defendant, and his observations following the murder. None of these matters depend on whether he personally read the specific in-progress content of an unsigned book-and-quill being composed by the Plaintiff in an adjacent room. The question does not go to any element of his testimony nor to his credibility on any matter on which he has given evidence. It is irrelevant and should be disallowed.

Furthermore, the Trial Protocol established at Post #73 provides that cross-examination "shall generally be limited to the subject matter of direct examination or the credibility of the witness." Whether .CaldironJa1 read the in-progress book falls outside the subject matter of his direct examination and does not go to his credibility on any matter on which he testified. The question violates the presiding judge's own trial order and should be disallowed on that basis as well.
​



Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE / FOUNDATION
Re: Cross-Examination of Witness IamJeb_, Question 1 (Post #128)

The Trial Protocol established at Post #73 provides that cross-examination "shall generally be limited to the subject matter of direct examination or the credibility of the witness." IamJeb_'s direct examination was confined exclusively to his presence in global chat on February 20, 2026, whether he made a real-time statement about the Plaintiff losing five pages of work, and whether he observed the Defendant's statements about legal recourse. His entire direct testimony concerned observations made in global chat. Whether IamJeb_ read a book held in another player's inventory in a private room on a separate plot is entirely outside the subject matter of that testimony and does not go to his credibility on any matter on which he has given evidence. The question violates the presiding judge's own trial order and should be disallowed.

The question further fails on foundation. No basis has been established, nor could one reasonably exist, for IamJeb_, a neutral third-party bystander present only in global chat, to have had any physical access to the Plaintiff's in-progress book-and-quill. The question should be disallowed.
​

 
xXTheoryXx said:

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE / BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Re: Cross-Examination of Witness .CaldironJa1, Question 1 (Post #128)

The Defendant asks whether .CaldironJa1 personally read the in-progress book prior to the Plaintiff's death. This question has no bearing on any matter to which .CaldironJa1's testimony is directed. His direct examination concerned the authorisation and workspace arrangement at plot c135, the commercial commission and payment of DC$1,500, the membership-only character of the 3rd floor, the ban notice issued to the Defendant, and his observations following the murder. None of these matters depend on whether he personally read the specific in-progress content of an unsigned book-and-quill being composed by the Plaintiff in an adjacent room. The question does not go to any element of his testimony nor to his credibility on any matter on which he has given evidence. It is irrelevant and should be disallowed.

Furthermore, the Trial Protocol established at Post #73 provides that cross-examination "shall generally be limited to the subject matter of direct examination or the credibility of the witness." Whether .CaldironJa1 read the in-progress book falls outside the subject matter of his direct examination and does not go to his credibility on any matter on which he testified. The question violates the presiding judge's own trial order and should be disallowed on that basis as well.[/]
Click to expand...

Response


It is related to the following questions asked by the Plaintiff's counsel:

xXTheoryXx said:
9. Please describe the standard practice by which a writer at that property is commissioned and paid for completed written work.

10. Are you personally familiar with the written work the Plaintiff was producing in her assigned room during the period leading up to the incident?
Click to expand...

 
xXTheoryXx said:

Objection​


[]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE / FOUNDATION
Re: Cross-Examination of Witness IamJeb_, Question 1 (Post #128)

The Trial Protocol established at Post #73 provides that cross-examination "shall generally be limited to the subject matter of direct examination or the credibility of the witness." IamJeb_'s direct examination was confined exclusively to his presence in global chat on February 20, 2026, whether he made a real-time statement about the Plaintiff losing five pages of work, and whether he observed the Defendant's statements about legal recourse. His entire direct testimony concerned observations made in global chat. Whether IamJeb_ read a book held in another player's inventory in a private room on a separate plot is entirely outside the subject matter of that testimony and does not go to his credibility on any matter on which he has given evidence. The question violates the presiding judge's own trial order and should be disallowed.

The question further fails on foundation. No basis has been established, nor could one reasonably exist, for IamJeb_, a neutral third-party bystander present only in global chat, to have had any physical access to the Plaintiff's in-progress book-and-quill. The question should be disallowed.
[/]
Click to expand...

Response


This is obviously related to the dependability of the statements made by IamJeb_, regarding whether he read the book and could accurately determine that some information was lost when he made his global chat about it.

Specifically, this is related to this question asked by the Plaintiff:

xXTheoryXx said:
Q2. While present in global chat on that date, did you, in real time, make a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff had lost five pages of work as a result of the incident?
Click to expand...

 
xXTheoryXx said:

Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE / BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Re: Cross-Examination of Witness .CaldironJa1, Question 1 (Post #128)

The Defendant asks whether .CaldironJa1 personally read the in-progress book prior to the Plaintiff's death. This question has no bearing on any matter to which .CaldironJa1's testimony is directed. His direct examination concerned the authorisation and workspace arrangement at plot c135, the commercial commission and payment of DC$1,500, the membership-only character of the 3rd floor, the ban notice issued to the Defendant, and his observations following the murder. None of these matters depend on whether he personally read the specific in-progress content of an unsigned book-and-quill being composed by the Plaintiff in an adjacent room. The question does not go to any element of his testimony nor to his credibility on any matter on which he has given evidence. It is irrelevant and should be disallowed.

Furthermore, the Trial Protocol established at Post #73 provides that cross-examination "shall generally be limited to the subject matter of direct examination or the credibility of the witness." Whether .CaldironJa1 read the in-progress book falls outside the subject matter of his direct examination and does not go to his credibility on any matter on which he testified. The question violates the presiding judge's own trial order and should be disallowed on that basis as well.
​



Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE / FOUNDATION
Re: Cross-Examination of Witness IamJeb_, Question 1 (Post #128)

The Trial Protocol established at Post #73 provides that cross-examination "shall generally be limited to the subject matter of direct examination or the credibility of the witness." IamJeb_'s direct examination was confined exclusively to his presence in global chat on February 20, 2026, whether he made a real-time statement about the Plaintiff losing five pages of work, and whether he observed the Defendant's statements about legal recourse. His entire direct testimony concerned observations made in global chat. Whether IamJeb_ read a book held in another player's inventory in a private room on a separate plot is entirely outside the subject matter of that testimony and does not go to his credibility on any matter on which he has given evidence. The question violates the presiding judge's own trial order and should be disallowed.

The question further fails on foundation. No basis has been established, nor could one reasonably exist, for IamJeb_, a neutral third-party bystander present only in global chat, to have had any physical access to the Plaintiff's in-progress book-and-quill. The question should be disallowed.
​

Click to expand...
Dartanboy said:

Response


It is related to the following questions asked by the Plaintiff's counsel:

Click to expand...
Dartanboy said:

Response


This is obviously related to the dependability of the statements made by IamJeb_, regarding whether he read the book and could accurately determine that some information was lost when he made his global chat about it.

Specifically, this is related to this question asked by the Plaintiff:

Click to expand...
The Court overrules both objections, finding that the cross-examination questioning may have value as to witness credibility and appears related to questioning conducted on direct examination.
 
Yes, emmy shared an excerpt of what she was working on before the incident.
 
Dartanboy said:
3. Do you recall if it included pages 7-12, which were allegedly lost according to the complaint?
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Re: Defendant's Follow-Up Question 3 to Witness .CaldironJa1 (Post #137)

The question asks whether the excerpt .CaldironJa1 viewed included pages 7-12. Exhibit P-003, already in the record, establishes the state of the work at the time the excerpt was shared. The question assumes a factual possibility that the evidence forecloses. Plaintiff respectfully requests it be stricken.
​

 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

PROCEDURAL NOTE - OBJECTION WINDOW

Your Honor, Follow-Up Question 2 (Post #135, 8:19 PM) was answered by the witness at Post #136 within five minutes, before Plaintiff had any opportunity to object. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court direct the witness to observe the 24-hour window before answering any further questions.
​
 
xXTheoryXx said:

Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Re: Defendant's Follow-Up Question 3 to Witness .CaldironJa1 (Post #137)

The question asks whether the excerpt .CaldironJa1 viewed included pages 7-12. Exhibit P-003, already in the record, establishes the state of the work at the time the excerpt was shared. The question assumes a factual possibility that the evidence forecloses. Plaintiff respectfully requests it be stricken.
​

Click to expand...
Overruled. If the portion didn’t have the pages in it, the witness can say “no.” The Court does not see an assumed fact not in evidence.
 
xXTheoryXx said:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

PROCEDURAL NOTE - OBJECTION WINDOW

Your Honor, Follow-Up Question 2 (Post #135, 8:19 PM) was answered by the witness at Post #136 within five minutes, before Plaintiff had any opportunity to object. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court direct the witness to observe the 24-hour window before answering any further questions.
​
Click to expand...
Your honor, if an objection is sustained, the answer can be struck as well.
 
xXTheoryXx said:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

PROCEDURAL NOTE - OBJECTION WINDOW

Your Honor, Follow-Up Question 2 (Post #135, 8:19 PM) was answered by the witness at Post #136 within five minutes, before Plaintiff had any opportunity to object. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court direct the witness to observe the 24-hour window before answering any further questions.

​
Click to expand...
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, if an objection is sustained, the answer can be struck as well.
Click to expand...
The typical way things have gone to facilitate efficient back-and-forth in this written medium is that the Court can strike answers after the fact; the Court sees no reason to deviate from this norm.
 
Dartanboy said:
3. Do you recall if it included pages 7-12, which were allegedly lost according to the complaint?
Click to expand...
I recall that it didn't. She just shared the first pages, I complimented how she started very professionally, "like an academic work". The incident happened some hours later.
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor,

I have no more questions for .CaldironJa1, however I do have a follow-up for IamJeb_.

Should I post his answer to the first question here or will you do so?
Click to expand...
The Court will post all the answers here upon the conclusion of questioning.
 
I will take over as presiding officer, the third in this case. God willing I will be the last.

Dartanboy said:
however I do have a follow-up for IamJeb_.
Click to expand...
You may proceed. Further, am I correct in assuming there is nothing I'm missing (in terms of pending business before the court) besides your questioning?
 
Smallfries said:
I will take over as presiding officer, the third in this case. God willing I will be the last.


You may proceed. Further, am I correct in assuming there is nothing I'm missing (in terms of pending business before the court) besides your questioning?
Click to expand...
I believe that's correct.

Follow-up for IamJeb_:
2. Since you did not read the book, does that mean you did not verify emmythegremlin lost any progress?
 
Smallfries said:
Did you intend to post this in the closed court thread?
Click to expand...
Your honor,

IamJeb_ does not have a forums account. There is no Closed Court. We agreed to have the witness on Discord.

When Multiman was the Judge, he asked we post questions first on the forums in case the opposing party had any objections. If no objections were filed, we would then ask the witness in Discord.
 

Closing Statement


DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24
PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING STATEMENT
Presented by xXTheoryXx - Theory, Talion & Partners, for the Plaintiff​

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━​

I. INTRODUCTION

Your Honour, at the close of evidence the central facts are undisputed, sworn, or wholly unrebutted.

The killing is not in dispute. The Answer admits the Plaintiff "died in-game," the kill log (P-001) and death screen (P-002) record it, and the Defence's own opening describes it as "a single murder." The Defendant admits he entered plot c135 (Post #25); the only access theory he offers is that the room "was not locked and had no signs saying it was private" and was "advertised in chat" (Post #25), and the property owner's testimony refutes that theory in full. The Defence's own discovery filing, moreover, described the killing as "planning on killing the Plaintiff for malicious purposes" (Post #17).

The Defence called no witnesses and produced no evidence (Post #74). It has offered only argument, and the law answers all of it. The Plaintiff proceeds, as the Court has fixed, on approximately fifteen minutes of lost active writing (Posts #51, #66); as shown below, an unlawful killing, an unauthorised entry, and a destroyed commission are not measured by a stopwatch.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━​

II. THE RECORD IS UNREBUTTED

The killing. At 11:56:40 BRT the server announced the Defendant started the fight; one second later, that he had murdered the Plaintiff (P-001, P-002). The Defendant does not dispute it.

No consent to enter. Witness .CaldironJa1 testified that the Plaintiff's workspace was on the members-only third floor of plot c135; that only members could access the workspaces; that a "FAS Member's Only" sign stood at the entrance, visible on exiting the elevator; that the workspace floors were never advertised to the public; and that the Defendant was never a member and was never given permission to enter (Posts #102, #118). The Defendant admits he entered the plot but identifies no grant of permission; his only claim, that the space seemed open, is answered by the sign, the membership rule, and the owner's direct evidence. None of this testimony is rebutted.

The work and its loss. The book was an original literary commission for which the owner paid DC$1,500 (Post #118), protected from the moment of creation under IPA §3. The owner confirmed the operative mechanic, "if a player is killed while writing a book, all the progress made before closing the book is lost" (Post #102), as did the Defendant himself: "keep inventory is on lol," answered at once by the Plaintiff, "keep inventory doesn't ... save books" (P-006; the omitted word is a chat-filtered expletive). The Plaintiff stated in real time that she had "lost five full pages," and the neutral bystander IamJeb_ said the same in global chat (P-006). The owner testified that the loss caused a delay that disrupted his schedule (Post #102) and understood that the lost excerpts had to be redone (Post #123).

Pattern. More than an hour before the killing, the Defendant told the server he was "waiting for my murder limit thing" (P-006). The owner testified that the "Your Rotten Remains" item left at the scene was a method he had watched the Defendant use three times: against himself, against SailorSatan, and against the Plaintiff (Post #123). He also testified that the Defendant had previously killed him repeatedly at plot i036 (Post #118). After the killing, the Defendant mocked the Plaintiff's recourse ("murder isnt suable," "u cant sue for that lol"), called the book in her hand "means nothing," and threatened to "countersue for triple" (P-006).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━​

III. LIABILITY IS ESTABLISHED

Murder (Claim 1; CCA Part IV §3). The Criminal Code and this Code operate concurrently, and civil damages may be sought for a crime with no criminal conviction required (RCCA Part II §4(2) and §6(1)(b); Part III §1(1)). The killing is undisputed and documented. Liability is beyond serious dispute.

Civil Trespass (Claim 6; RCCA Part VII §3). Trespass is an intentional, strict-liability violation: entry "without consent or legal privilege." Entry is established: the Defendant admits entering the plot (Post #25), and the killing itself occurred in the Plaintiff's third-floor workspace (Post #102). Consent is absent on every front: non-member, members-only floor, posted sign, and no permission ever given. The statutory defences (consent, lawful authority, necessity) all fail. Because trespass is a strict-liability violation, the Defendant's intent or knowledge is irrelevant, and the entry was no innocent passage in any event: it culminated in the unlawful killing. The Defence's only reply, that the ban came "after" the killing, misses the point: the question under §3 is consent at the time of entry, and the absence of a prior ban is not the presence of consent. The ban notice (P-009) merely confirms in writing what the owner has testified to. The listed remedy for trespass is injunctive, but the damages provisions of Part III apply "in addition, not in substitution" and need not be separately pleaded (RCCA Part III §1(3)).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━​

IV. THE DEFENCE'S ARGUMENTS FAIL

"The work survives in P-005." P-005 is an external Google Document; the item destroyed was the in-game book in active composition. The survival of an outside draft does not restore the in-game work, which the owner understood had to be redone (Post #123). The Plaintiff's eventual delivery is not the absence of harm; it is the Plaintiff mitigating a harm the Defendant caused.

"No proof pages 7-12 existed." The standard is the balance of probabilities, not certainty. The undisputed mechanic, the Defendant's own concession that "keep inventory is on," the contemporaneous statements in chat, and the owner's testimony of the resulting delay (Post #102) together establish the loss. The Defendant cannot destroy work and then defeat the claim by demanding the destroyed pages be produced.

"She should have saved" ([2022] SCR 18). The "allow damages to occur" language comes from a divided, Legal-Damages-Act-era decision in which the plaintiff admitted he saw an ongoing plot and deliberately let it run to collect evidence; even then, a Justice dissented against placing any such onus on a victim. That is the opposite of a writer killed mid-composition without warning, with no knowledge to act on and no chance to prevent the loss. The principle is also superseded: this Code now governs the same subject matter and takes precedence over inconsistent common law (RCCA Part II §3(1)(c)), and it fixes the rules of diminution itself, mitigation (which the Defendant must prove) and contributory negligence (capped at a 50% reduction) (§2(3)). A total bar on relief cannot survive that framework. In any event the Plaintiff mitigated, delivering the completed work within a week (Post #118).

"Game mechanics, not the Defendant." The mechanic was triggered by the unlawful killing. But for the murder, there is no loss. A defendant cannot shelter behind the consequence of his own crime.

"He didn't know books are lost on death." Knowledge is no element of strict-liability trespass, nor of the killing. The Defence conceded "some sort of read-able item was being held" (Post #17), which the Defendant dismissed as "means nothing," and his remark that "i can argue ... i had no way of knowing" (P-006) reflects calculation, not innocence.

"Loss of enjoyment fails, she can still write." Section 5 reaches a party who "loses, or has diminished," their ability to act "in the way ... before the harm," and expressly covers "worsening of conditions." The killing ended the creative session the Plaintiff was present to carry out and delayed delivery of the commission (Post #102). That she resumed writing later does not erase the disruption on the day.

"Compensatory is capped at $45.90 or $170." That arithmetic fails. DC$170 is the retail price of a single copy; the owner valued the commission itself at DC$1,500 (Post #118), and creative pages are not fungible units to be divided by total page count. Compensatory damages under §2 restore harm to property and to earning capacity, assessed by the Court at the actual loss proven, not a per-page fraction of a sale price.

"Punitive is unwarranted; nothing is illegal; SCR 20 gave $500." The test is "outrageous conduct" (§3(2)(b)), not separate criminality. The Defendant's conduct meets it on multiple grounds: an intent to cause harm (the Defence's discovery filing described the killing as "for malicious purposes," Post #17); dishonesty, bad faith, or abuse (the mockery and the threatened retaliatory countersuit); and persistent, repeated misconduct (the same execution method against three victims, and prior killings at i036). No remorse has been shown, so no reduction applies (§3(3)). SCR 20 sets no ceiling here: it was a default judgment under the now-repealed Legal Damages Act, and the Court tied its modest $500 figure to express findings that the act, though outrageous, was "not among the most outrageous of possible acts," that there was "not a significant amount of proven harm," and that the defendant was in debt ($985 in the negative), a wealth factor the Court weighed. This case differs on each point: the victim is a person rather than a pet, the killing was premeditated and carried out by a method the Defendant has used repeatedly, and no comparable mitigating circumstances are established.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━​

V. DAMAGES

Nominal (Claim 5; RCCA Part III §4). With the killing and the trespass established, nominal damages of up to DC$7,500 follow as a matter of law; the statute provides "no diminution of award or defences" (§4(3)). This is a floor available even on the most conservative view of the case.

Compensatory (Claim 2; §2). The destroyed in-game work is harm to property, and the disruption and delay are harm to earning capacity. The Court sets the actual figure on the evidence, not on the Defence's per-page fraction of a sale price.

Consequential (Claim 3; §5). Section 5 covers "worsening of conditions," the unforeseen downstream disruption, as well as loss of enjoyment. Unlike the uncorroborated claim rejected in SCR 20, the disruption here is supported by the property owner's independent testimony that the loss delayed the commission and disrupted his schedule (Post #102), not by the Plaintiff's word alone. Any award sits within the §5 cap, which lifts where punitive damages are awarded (§5(2)).

Punitive (Claim 4; §3). This is the heart of an award that deters. The killing was targeted, executed by a signature method, and met with mockery rather than remorse. The Defendant told the Plaintiff he would "lose like 250" for it (P-006), treating the consequence as a price worth paying. An award matching that expectation would neither punish nor deter. The §3(2)(d) factors (the character of the act, the nature and extent of the harm, and the Defendant's wealth) call for substantially more.

Legal fees (§7). Awarded to the prevailing party at 30% of the case value, subject to the District Court minimum of DC$3,000.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━​

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendant and an award of:

(a) DC$5,000 in compensatory damages (RCCA Part III §2);
(b) DC$7,500 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment (RCCA Part III §5);
(c) DC$15,000 in punitive damages (RCCA Part III §3);
(d) in the alternative, DC$7,500 in nominal damages (RCCA Part III §4);
(e) legal fees at 30% of the total award (RCCA Part III §7); and
(f) an order restraining the Defendant from further entry onto the property (RCCA Part VII §3).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━​

VII. CONCLUSION

The Defendant entered a workspace he had no right to enter, killed the Plaintiff mid-composition, and met her loss with mockery rather than remorse. He does not dispute the killing, he admits the entry, and his own words and the Defence's own filings supply the rest. The Plaintiff's account is corroborated, sworn, and unrebutted, while the Defence rests on argument alone. The Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in her favour on all claims.

Respectfully submitted,
xXTheoryXx
Theory, Talion & Partners, for the Plaintiff​

 
  • Heart
Reactions: MJL

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

There are several issues in this case, and I will address them one-by-one.

1 - The Work
Was there a work? How much of the work was completed? Was there any work lost due to the murder? If yes, how much?

These are all questions that fall under the issue of "The Work."

There isn't much of a rule to be applied to this issue, except one arising from Common Sense - something must exist for it be damaged.

Applying this rule to this case, while we do know that "some sort of read-able item was being held," and there may be evidence suggesting it was a work-in-progress book, there is no evidence that it included Pages 7-12, which the Plaintiff alleges were lost due to the murder.

We furthermore lack any witness testimony which would support the Plaintiff's claim - and in fact have testimony to invalidate it.
Witness IamJeb_, whom the Plaintiff erroneously describes as having "independently corroborated" the Plaintiff's claims, went on record, stating "I did not" verify emmythegremlin lost any progress.
The Plaintiff's employer, .CaldironJa1, went on record saying "I recall that [the book] didn't" include pages 7-12, when he looked at it prior to the murder.

Because there is no evidence pages 7-12 even existed, and in fact witness testimony suggests the opposite, no damages can be awarded because if something does not exist, it cannot be damaged.

2 - Compensatory Damages
In the hypothetical world where pages 7-12 were definitively in existence and destroyed by the Defendant, how much of the requested compensatory damages are actually valid?

The rule relevant here is from the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA), Part III, Section 2, stating "Compensatory damages are the restoration of what the party has lost."

The Plaintiff claims the entire 22-page book is "valued at approximately 170 DC$." At most, they could be entitled to $170. Perhaps if they were unable to reproduce the allegedly lost work, they would have a better claim to $1500, however as the Plaintiff's employer went on record stating, "... even with the incident, [the Plaintiff] was pretty fast in delivering the work in less than a week."

Certainly the only logical conclusion is, even if the book was damaged, there is no reason to award $5,000 as requested, and the compensatory damages cannot exceed $170.

3 - Consequential Damages
In the hypothetical world where pages 7-12 were definitively in existence and destroyed by the Defendant, how much of the requested consequential damages are actually valid?

The only requested Consequential Damages are due to Loss of Enjoyment, which leads us to the following rule from RCCA Section 5, subsection 1(a)(iii), stating "situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm."

An additional rule comes from the verdict of [2026] DCR 66, causing an obscure "amount of time lost" to be insufficient for Loss of Enjoyment.

Notably, despite being mentioned in the Plaintiff's Closing Statement, "Worsening of Conditions" was not requested in the case filing, and must be ignored regardless of whether it is legitimate.

The Plaintiff has failed to show they lost their ability to engage in creative writing, selling creative works, or had that ability diminished in any substantial way, and despite the claim of delay, DCR 66 tells us that is insufficient.

The only logical conclusion is that the Plaintiff has not suffered Loss of Enjoyment.

4 - Punitive Damages
In the hypothetical world where pages 7-12 were definitively in existence and destroyed by the Defendant, how much of the requested punitive damages are actually valid?

The first relevant rule comes from RCCA Section 3, stating "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."

The second comes from understanding of the Criminal Code - that fines and jail time by the relevant enforcer of the Criminal Code are themselves punitive damages.

The Defendant's only illegal action was the murder itself. He already paid the fine associated with it to the DHS. If Punitive Damages are awarded here, then every murder in Redmont must result in the payment of Punitive Damages to the victim.

The only valid conclusion is that Punitive Damages must not be awarded.

5 - Legal Fees
In the hypothetical world where pages 7-12 were definitively in existence and destroyed by the Defendant, how much of the requested Legal Fees are actually valid?

The Plaintiff's Prayer for Legal Fees is the only fully valid one (if and only if the Court were to find the Defendant liable for other damages), saying "Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded..."

Conclusion
Overall, it is clear that the Plaintiff's damages were at best overstated, and but more than likely fabricated entirely. This is a simple murder case, and one that has no business being argued over in a civil suit.

I ask for $3,000 in Legal Fees, payable to Dartanboy.

 
Quick update: this coming week I am extremely busy, but this is the next DC related thing I have to finish. I already have a good bit sketched out, just need to sit down and make it all happen. I haven't forgotten, I promise. Fairly certain I'll get it finished by the end of this month at the latest, hoping to knock it out this weekend if I can muster the strength to barrel through it all. Thank you for your patience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top