Lawsuit: Pending emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

xXTheoryXx

xXTheoryXx

Citizen
Commerce Department
xXTheoryXx
xXTheoryXx
Compliance Officer
Joined
Feb 18, 2026
Messages
84

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


CIVIL ACTION


emmythegremlin (Represented by xXTheoryXx, Talion and Partners LLC), Plaintiff
v.
roy405, Defendant




WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF




On February 20, 2026, while lawfully present on private property and actively engaged in writing a 22-page literary work commissioned for a commercial library, the Defendant unlawfully murdered the Plaintiff at approximately 11:56 BRT. The murder caused the permanent and total destruction of approximately five pages of unsaved literary work — pages 7 through 12 of the in-progress manuscript — which formed part of a work valued at approximately 170 DC$ and represented 15 minutes of active creative writing. The Defendant subsequently bragged publicly about the killing, dismissed the Plaintiff's legal rights, and threatened retaliatory litigation. The property owner independently characterised the Defendant's conduct as materially damaging to his business productivity. This action seeks compensation for the harm caused.




I. PARTIES


Plaintiff: emmythegremlin
Defendant: roy405




II. FACTS


  1. On February 20, 2026, at approximately 11:56 BRT, the Defendant, roy405, murdered the Plaintiff, emmythegremlin, as confirmed by server kill notification and death screen. (P-001, P-002)
  2. At the time of the murder, the Plaintiff was lawfully present in a private room on the property of .CaldironJa1 (plot c135), with the express permission, knowledge, and active involvement of the property owner. .CaldironJa1 had personally invited the Plaintiff to his office, assigned her a workspace in the room adjacent to his, and was actively engaged with the literary work being produced. (P-007)
  3. The Plaintiff was engaged in writing "A General History of Redmont (Vol. 1)," a 22-page original literary work commissioned for .CaldironJa1's commercial library and listed for sale at approximately 170 DC$. The Plaintiff publicly shared her writing progress in the server's Discord #general channel at 09:50 BRT, posting a photograph of an in-progress draft of the book showing "Page 3 of 3, Part I: Prolegomena and Prehistory," and announced her planned research interviews at 10:51 BRT. The Plaintiff actively developed the work across the session, including conducting research using source materials held in .CaldironJa1's locked library. (P-003, P-004, P-005)
  4. The Plaintiff worked actively for approximately 15 minutes writing the in-progress manuscript immediately prior to the murder. At the time of the killing, the Plaintiff was on page 12 of the work, having begun the session's unsaved writing from page 7 — producing approximately five pages of dense original text, beginning with "Herodotus wrote both to preserve history and to explain it..." and ending mid-composition at "I will treat Redmont..." This unsaved content, spanning pages 7 through 12, was permanently destroyed by the murder. (P-003; Plaintiff's statement)
  5. The literary work was being produced for commercial purposes. The Plaintiff stated publicly in global chat at 12:14 BRT: "i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business." The property owner .CaldironJa1 independently confirmed the commercial nature of the work in global chat at 12:11 BRT, stating: "It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity." (P-006, P-010)
  6. In DemocracyCraft, items are retained on death as keepInventory is active. The Defendant himself confirmed this at 12:06 BRT, stating "keep inventory is on lol." The Plaintiff immediately responded: "keep inventory doesn't I love DemocracyCraft!ing save books." Accordingly, the sole property loss resulting from the murder was the approximately five pages of unsaved in-progress manuscript being actively composed at the time of the killing — pages 7 through 12 of the 22-page work. (P-006)
  7. The approximately five pages of unsaved literary work were permanently and totally destroyed. The Plaintiff confirmed this loss in global chat immediately following the murder: "i lost five full pages of written stuff." This loss was independently corroborated by Hunter IamJeb_, who stated: "comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy." (P-006)
  8. The Defendant, upon being confronted in global chat, acknowledged the killing and systematically dismissed the Plaintiff's legal rights. The Defendant stated: "murder isnt suable," "u cant sue for that lol," and "if she sues me ill countersue for triple that lol." The Defendant further stated: "i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing," an admission of awareness of the legal implications of the book's destruction. When the Plaintiff stated she had a book in hand as visible evidence, the Defendant responded: "means nothing." (P-006)
  9. Earlier on the same date, the Defendant had publicly identified himself as the server's most notorious murderer when directly asked by another player. At approximately 10:40 BRT, approximately 76 minutes before the murder, the Defendant admitted he was managing his murder cooldown in order to commit further killings, stating he was "waiting for my murder limit thing." (P-006)
  10. Following the murder, the property owner .CaldironJa1 issued a formal written ban notice to the Defendant at 12:11 BRT: "You are banned from plot c135 and from causing harm, disruption, or distress to anyone here. Further interference will be treated as material damage to my business, and legal action may follow." (P-009)
  11. The Defendant, appearing aware that his conduct would result in a fine, stated in global chat: "if it makes u feel better ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u," acknowledging both the killing and the likelihood of criminal consequences. (P-006)



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


1.MurderCriminal Code Act, Part IV §3; Civil damages pursuant to CCA Part I §6(1)

The Defendant unlawfully murdered the Plaintiff. Server kill logs and death screen screenshot confirm the act to the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities). Per CCA Part I §6(1)(a-b), crimes may be used to establish civil liability without a criminal conviction. The Defendant is civilly liable for all damages flowing from this unlawful killing.


2. Destruction of Literary Property
Compensatory Damages, LDA §4(2)(a) RCCA Part III §2 (Compensatory Damages)
The Plaintiff's literary work constitutes an original creative work automatically protected under IPA §3 from the moment of creation. The Defendant's murder caused the permanent and total destruction of approximately five pages of unsaved in-progress manuscript — pages 7 through 12 of "A General History of Redmont (Vol. 1)" — the only property loss resulting from the killing, as DemocracyCraft's keepInventory mechanic confirmed by the Defendant himself preserves all other items on death. The destroyed content formed a substantial portion of a commissioned literary work listed for sale at 170 DC$ in .CaldironJa1's commercial library. The Plaintiff claims compensatory damages for harm to property and harm to earning capacity under RCCA Part III §2.

3. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
Legal Damages Act §7(1)(a)(IV) RCCA Part III §5 (Consequential Damages / Loss of Enjoyment)
The Plaintiff was present on the server on February 20, 2026, for the specific and documented purpose of writing literary works, as evidenced by her public Discord announcements at 09:50 and 10:51 BRT and the entirety of her server session being devoted to research, collaboration, and writing. The Defendant's murder directly and completely destroyed the Plaintiff's ability to engage in the activity for which she was present on the server. The Plaintiff is entitled to consequential damages for loss of enjoyment under RCCA Part III §5.

4. Punitive Damages
Legal Damages Act §5(1)(a) RCCA Part III §3 (Punitive Damages)
The Defendant's conduct was outrageous and warrants punitive damages. The pattern includes: (a) entering a private room on another player's property without authorisation; (b) murdering the Plaintiff while she was visibly holding a book and actively engaged in creative work; (c) causing the permanent destruction of approximately five pages of unsaved commissioned literary work; (d) publicly mocking the Plaintiff's legal rights and dismissing her loss as meaningless; (e) threatening a bad-faith countersuit; (f) self-identifying as the server's most notorious murderer and admitting to managing his murder cooldown 76 minutes before the killing; and (g) stating "book in hand means nothing," confirming he saw the evidence of her work and chose to disregard it. The property owner independently and contemporaneously characterised the conduct as materially damaging to his business productivity.

5. Nominal Damages
Legal Damages Act §6 RCCA Part III §4 (Nominal Damages)
In the alternative, should the Court find that specific damages have not been sufficiently proven, the Plaintiff requests nominal damages of $7,500 as recognition that a legal wrong was committed.

6. Civil Trespass
RCCA Part VII §3
The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.




IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:


(a) $5,000 in compensatory damages for the destruction of copyrighted literary property and harm to earning capacity (LDA §4(2)(a) RCCA Part III §2);
(b) $7,500 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment in Redmont (LDA §7(1)(a)(IV) RCCA Part III §5);
(c) $15,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's outrageous conduct (LDA §5(1)(a) RCCA Part III §3);
(d) In the alternative, $7,500 in nominal damages (LDA §6 RCCA Part III §4); and
(e) Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Talion and Partners LLC (T&P) (LDA §9 RCCA Part III §7).


Total primary claim: $27,500 plus $8,250 in legal fees.





V. EVIDENCE


Source: latest.txt
Lines: [11:56:40] and [11:56:41]

Code: 
[11:56:40] roy405 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself!
[11:56:41] 911 roy405 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities


File: 1771796058705_image.png
1771796058705_image.png

The in-game red death screen confirming the murder event.

View attachment 1771796058705


File: Book33.png
Book33.png

Shows:
"Page 3 of 3, Part I: Prolegomena and Prehistory"
Sign and Done buttons visible, confirming an open, unsigned, unsaved book in active use.


File: teeheeend.png
teeheeend.png


Message:
"alr first person i need to talk to / end / teehee,"

Confirming active research and interview planning.


Title: A General History of Redmont (Vol. 1)

This document contains creation and edit timestamps establishing authorship, ongoing development, and 22-page scope prior to the murder event.

View Google Document (P-005)


Full Post-Murder Global Chat Excerpts

Code: 
[12:03:09] Emmy: because i was writing something... and you killing me kinda like... deleted everything
[12:04:04] Emmy: you're lucky i had a save on a google doc
[12:06:08] Roy: keep inventory is on lol
[12:06:47] Emmy: keep inventory doesn't I love DemocracyCraft!ing save books
[12:08:15] Emmy: i lost five full pages of written stuff
[12:09:43] IamJeb_: comet killed someone and it removed 5 pages of work from a guy
[12:11:05] Roy: i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing
[12:14:10] Emmy: i was writing, on Cald's property, to be sold on Cald's business
[12:15:00] Emmy: book in hand
[12:15:01] Roy: means nothing
[12:16:16] Roy: ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u.


File: 2026-02-20-3.txt

Code: 
[10:55:32] Caldiron invites Emmy to his office
[10:56:27] the room next to yours
[10:42:05] Emmy copying from Google Doc into game
[10:45:22 - 10:46:14] Caldiron praising the work as "like an academic article" and "babado"
[10:56:52] System: This Display Lectern is locked by .CaldironJa1


File: Consent.png
Consent.png


Discord screenshot showing xXTheoryXx requesting formal retention confirmation and emmythegremlin replying "yes!" at 15:50 BRT on February 20, 2026.


File: Ban notice.png
Ban notice.png


Code: 
You are banned from plot c135 and from causing harm, disruption, or distress to anyone here. Further interference will be treated as material damage to my business, and legal action may follow.


Source: latest.txt
Line: [12:11:56]

Code: 
It's not emotional. It's material. It's effecting my business productivity.



VI. WITNESSES


.CaldironJa1, Property Owner. Will testify to: (a) the Plaintiff's authorised presence and assigned workspace on plot c135; (b) his active knowledge of, involvement in, and praise for the literary work being produced; (c) the commercial purpose of the work for his library at approximately 170 DC$ sale price; (d) authorship of the ban notice (P-009); and (e) his characterisation of the harm as material damage to his business productivity (P-010).


IamJeb_, Neutral Third-Party Witness. Will testify to: (a) independently observing and publicly stating that the Defendant killed someone and that it resulted in the removal of five pages of written work; and (b) witnessing the post-murder global chat exchange including the Defendant's admissions and dismissal of the Plaintiff's legal rights in real time.




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


DATED: This 22nd day of February, 2026

Respectfully submitted,


xXTheoryXx Junior Associate, Talion and Partners LLC
On behalf of emmythegremlin, Plaintiff

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@roy405 , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24

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.

 
since i don't have discord, i'm unable to contact legal companies and find it difficult to answer this case. thus i am requesting a Public Defender
 
roy405 said:
since i don't have discord, i'm unable to contact legal companies and find it difficult to answer this case. thus i am requesting a Public Defender
Click to expand...
One shall be requested on your behalf. Case is in recess pending appointment of a public defender or acquisition of legal counsel by the Defendant, whichever should come first.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

emmythegremlin
Plaintiff

v.

roy405
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Defendant admits that the Plaintiff died in-game but disputes that this resulted in any actionable property loss caused by the Defendant.

2. Defendant denies that any property belonging to the Plaintiff was destroyed or taken by the Defendant.

3. Defendant denies responsibility for the alleged loss of written content. Any alleged loss of unsaved text was not property physically held or destroyed by the Defendant.

4. Defendant denies that the alleged five pages of writing constitute property that was destroyed by the Defendant, and denies that the Defendant had any knowledge such writing existed.

5. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff’s claimed damages are valid or that the Defendant is liable for them.

II. DEFENCES

1. No Property Loss Caused by Defendant, Defendant did not destroy, steal, or otherwise interfere with any property belonging to the Plaintiff.

2. Game Mechanics, Any alleged loss resulted from normal gameplay mechanics rather than any direct action by the Defendant to destroy property if it was destroyed.

3. Lack of Knowledge, Defendant had no knowledge that the Plaintiff allegedly had unsaved written content at the time and it was not his action that any was lost.

4. Speculative Damages, The value of the alleged lost writing is speculative and unsupported and not proven to be lost.

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

DATED: This 8th day of March 2026

 

Motion


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

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves that the Court grant leave to amend the Complaint to correct erroneous statutory citations and to add one additional cause of action, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The original Complaint, filed 22 February 2026, cited the Legal Damages Act (LDA) throughout Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, and in the Prayer for Relief.

2. Upon review of the Complaint, counsel identified that through an oversight on our part, the citations provided referenced the Legal Damages Act (LDA), which had been repealed and superseded by the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) prior to the filing of this action. We apologise for this error and bring this motion promptly to ensure the record accurately reflects the applicable law.

3. The RCCA contains substantively identical provisions to those relied upon. The facts, allegations, and relief sought are entirely unchanged. The citation corrections are as follows:
- Claim 2: LDA §4(2)(a) → RCCA Part III §2 (Compensatory Damages)
- Claim 3: LDA §7(1)(a)(IV) → RCCA Part III §5 (Consequential Damages / Loss of Enjoyment)
- Claim 4: LDA §5(1)(a) → RCCA Part III §3 (Punitive Damages)
- Claim 5: LDA §6 → RCCA Part III §4 (Nominal Damages)
- Prayer for Relief (e): LDA §9 → RCCA Part III §7 (Legal Fees)

4. The Plaintiff further seeks to add a claim for Civil Trespass under RCCA Part VII §3. The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.

5. No prejudice results to the Defendant. All claims arise from facts fully pleaded and known to the Defendant since the original filing.

 
xXTheoryXx said:

Motion


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

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff moves that the Court grant leave to amend the Complaint to correct erroneous statutory citations and to add one additional cause of action, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The original Complaint, filed 22 February 2026, cited the Legal Damages Act (LDA) throughout Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, and in the Prayer for Relief.

2. Upon review of the Complaint, counsel identified that through an oversight on our part, the citations provided referenced the Legal Damages Act (LDA), which had been repealed and superseded by the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) prior to the filing of this action. We apologise for this error and bring this motion promptly to ensure the record accurately reflects the applicable law.

3. The RCCA contains substantively identical provisions to those relied upon. The facts, allegations, and relief sought are entirely unchanged. The citation corrections are as follows:
- Claim 2: LDA §4(2)(a) → RCCA Part III §2 (Compensatory Damages)
- Claim 3: LDA §7(1)(a)(IV) → RCCA Part III §5 (Consequential Damages / Loss of Enjoyment)
- Claim 4: LDA §5(1)(a) → RCCA Part III §3 (Punitive Damages)
- Claim 5: LDA §6 → RCCA Part III §4 (Nominal Damages)
- Prayer for Relief (e): LDA §9 → RCCA Part III §7 (Legal Fees)

4. The Plaintiff further seeks to add a claim for Civil Trespass under RCCA Part VII §3. The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.

5. No prejudice results to the Defendant. All claims arise from facts fully pleaded and known to the Defendant since the original filing.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Post No. 13)

Granted.

Under Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), “Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge”.

The Court, upon examining the motion, sees two central changes sought.

The first change sought is modifying references from the Legal Damages Act to the RCCA. These changes are well-explained and are explicitly declared—they show exactly what will be removed and exactly what will be inserted in place. As such, these changes shall be made by striking through the old text and inserting the new text at relevant locations declared in the motion.

The second change sought is to add Civil Trespass as a claim. Adding new claims for relief during discovery is permissible under the Court rules. The Court, thus, permits the addition of a sixth claim as follows, in line with Plaintiff’s declaration quoted below.

Civil Trespass under RCCA Part VII §3. The Defendant entered a private room on plot c135, the property of .CaldironJa1, without authorisation before committing the murder. This is an intentional strict liability tort requiring no proof beyond the unauthorised entry itself. The property owner's formal written ban notice (P-009), issued immediately following the incident, confirms the Defendant had no right to be present. No new facts are required; this claim arises entirely from the facts already pleaded.
Click to expand...

So Ordered,
Judge Multi

 

Motion


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

PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST

The Plaintiff, emmythegremlin, represented by xXTheoryXx of Talion and Partners LLC, hereby submits the following requests to the Defendant, roy405, pursuant to the Court's Discovery rules. All responses are required within 48 hours. Objections must be raised within 24 hours.

I. DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. A full list of all evidence and exhibits the Defendant intends to rely upon at the hearing.

2. Any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135 on or before 20 February 2026.

3. Any evidence the Defendant intends to rely upon in support of any of the four defences listed in the Answer to Complaint (Post #9).

II. INTERROGATORIES

1. Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no.

2. At the time of the murder, did the Defendant observe the Plaintiff holding a book? Answer yes or no.

3. Was the Defendant aware at the time of the killing that unsaved written content in Minecraft books is permanently lost upon death?

4. The Defendant stated in global chat at 12:15 BRT: "book in hand means nothing." What did the Defendant mean by this statement?

5. At approximately 10:40 BRT on 20 February 2026, did the Defendant state in global chat that he was "waiting for my murder limit thing"? If so, please explain what the Defendant meant by this statement.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to respond to any evidence or answers disclosed.

 
xXTheoryXx said:

Motion


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

PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST

The Plaintiff, emmythegremlin, represented by xXTheoryXx of Talion and Partners LLC, hereby submits the following requests to the Defendant, roy405, pursuant to the Court's Discovery rules. All responses are required within 48 hours. Objections must be raised within 24 hours.

I. DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. A full list of all evidence and exhibits the Defendant intends to rely upon at the hearing.

2. Any prior communications between the Defendant and .CaldironJa1 regarding permission or access to plot c135 on or before 20 February 2026.

3. Any evidence the Defendant intends to rely upon in support of any of the four defences listed in the Answer to Complaint (Post #9).

II. INTERROGATORIES

1. Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no.

2. At the time of the murder, did the Defendant observe the Plaintiff holding a book? Answer yes or no.

3. Was the Defendant aware at the time of the killing that unsaved written content in Minecraft books is permanently lost upon death?

4. The Defendant stated in global chat at 12:15 BRT: "book in hand means nothing." What did the Defendant mean by this statement?

5. At approximately 10:40 BRT on 20 February 2026, did the Defendant state in global chat that he was "waiting for my murder limit thing"? If so, please explain what the Defendant meant by this statement.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to respond to any evidence or answers disclosed.

Click to expand...
@Babysoga4real
  1. On Interrogatories: You have 48 hours from the time of posting the above quoted post to respond to the Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Objections must be raised within 24 hours of the above quoted post’s posting. See Rule 4.8.
  2. On other discovery requests: Unlike as appears asserted by Plaintiff, responses to discovery requests are not bound by the same timeline as are responses to interrogatories. The Court gives the defense 60 hours from the time of this post to let the Court know if the defense substantially contests any discovery request made by the Plaintiff, as well as to post any objections to the requests. If the defense wishes to object or to note opposition on substantial grounds, the Court asks that the Defense please keep the objections and/or substantial opposition arguments in a single post, so as to keep things consolidated.
So Ordered,
Judge Multi
 
Your Honor,

I'd like to reply to the post made by the Plaintiff i.e. his Attorney.

1. Documents
First and Foremost I as the defendants Lawyer am unable to produce any and all documents that the Plaintiff requests as I do not have any access to these if they exist.

2. Questions

1. I do not believe that anything is clear on this point I am not the Defendant and was not there at the moment so I cannot answer this without committing any sort of perjury.

2. Although we do not know what kind of a book this was we do affirm the fact that some sort of read-able item was being held.

3. No, the Defendant was not aware of this and the defences disputes this point as not enough evidence has been brought forward to even provide minimal proof of this.

4. Well, we believe that this can be taken at face value that a book in a hand means nothing, wouldn't you agree?

5. We do not believe that the argument in this case is about if the Plaintiff was killed, but if they lost value from being killed this quote simple means that he was planning on killing the Plaintiff for malicious purposes but not intending any harm outside of the murder.​
 

Motion


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

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a complete and proper answer to Interrogatory 1 of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #17), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted five interrogatories to the Defendant during Discovery. The Defendant's counsel, Babysoga4real, responded to all five. However, the response to Interrogatory 1 is procedurally defective and does not constitute a valid answer.

2. Interrogatory 1 asked: "Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no."

3. The Defendant's counsel responded: "I do not believe that anything is clear on this point. I am not the Defendant and was not there at the moment so I cannot answer this without committing any sort of perjury."

4. This response is invalid for the following reasons:

(a) Interrogatories are directed to the party - roy405 - not to counsel personally. Counsel is obligated to consult their client and provide an answer on their behalf. Personal ignorance of counsel is not a valid basis for refusing to answer.

(b) The suggestion that answering would risk perjury is without merit. Counsel answers interrogatories based on instructions from their client. If the Defendant authorised the entry, the answer is yes. If he did not, the answer is no. There is no ambiguity that would expose counsel to perjury.

(c) The response does not constitute an objection to the interrogatory, nor does it provide any substantive answer. It is a refusal dressed as a procedural concern.

5. The question of whether the Defendant had authorisation to enter plot c135 is directly material to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and is a proper subject of Discovery.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper yes or no answer to Interrogatory 1 within 24 hours, and that failure to comply be treated as an adverse admission that no such authorisation existed.

 
xXTheoryXx said:

Motion


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

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves that the Court order the Defendant to provide a complete and proper answer to Interrogatory 1 of the Plaintiff's Discovery Request (Post #17), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff submitted five interrogatories to the Defendant during Discovery. The Defendant's counsel, Babysoga4real, responded to all five. However, the response to Interrogatory 1 is procedurally defective and does not constitute a valid answer.

2. Interrogatory 1 asked: "Did the Defendant have prior authorisation from .CaldironJa1 to enter the private room on plot c135 on 20 February 2026? Answer yes or no."

3. The Defendant's counsel responded: "I do not believe that anything is clear on this point. I am not the Defendant and was not there at the moment so I cannot answer this without committing any sort of perjury."

4. This response is invalid for the following reasons:

(a) Interrogatories are directed to the party - roy405 - not to counsel personally. Counsel is obligated to consult their client and provide an answer on their behalf. Personal ignorance of counsel is not a valid basis for refusing to answer.

(b) The suggestion that answering would risk perjury is without merit. Counsel answers interrogatories based on instructions from their client. If the Defendant authorised the entry, the answer is yes. If he did not, the answer is no. There is no ambiguity that would expose counsel to perjury.

(c) The response does not constitute an objection to the interrogatory, nor does it provide any substantive answer. It is a refusal dressed as a procedural concern.

5. The question of whether the Defendant had authorisation to enter plot c135 is directly material to the Plaintiff's Civil Trespass claim under RCCA Part VII §3 and is a proper subject of Discovery.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the Defendant to provide a proper yes or no answer to Interrogatory 1 within 24 hours, and that failure to comply be treated as an adverse admission that no such authorisation existed.

Click to expand...
@Babysoga4real you have 48 hours to respond to this motion to compel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top