Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@.CaldironJa1 on pain of contempt, answer the questions within 24 hours of this post.Seeing no further objections, the witness ( @.CaldironJa1 ) is directed to answer the questions over the next 24 hours.
Sorry about that, I've got really busy in the last 2 days.@.CaldironJa1 on pain of contempt, answer the questions within 24 hours of this post.
Granted. Questions due May 8 at 1:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time.Your honor, illd like to request a 72h extension for me to file follow ups due to irl events
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?
BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Questions were about 4 hours late.
Objection
BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Questions were about 4 hours late.
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.Objection
BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Questions were about 4 hours late.
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?
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.
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.
RELEVANCE
i036 is not related to the incident(s) in this case. Neither is the Defendant's past.
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.
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.
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.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.
@.CaldironJa1 please answer the questions in the next 24 hours, excluding the question struck through.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.
Sure.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
@.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.Sure.
@.CaldironJa1 please answer these questions in the next 24 hoursIN 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?
Seeing none, we will move to closing statements. The Court will attach the discord Questioning of witness IamJeb_ into the case record.Any further questions?
Your honor,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.
Oops.Your honor,
I still have not been permitted cross-examination.
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.
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.[/]
It is related to the following questions asked by the Plaintiff's counsel:
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?
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.
[/]
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:
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?
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.
Response
It is related to the following questions asked by the Plaintiff's counsel:
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.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:
@.CaldironJa1 please answer this question within 24 hours.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?
Follow-UpYes, emmy shared an excerpt of what she was working on before the incident.
3. Do you recall if it included pages 7-12, which were allegedly lost according to the complaint?2. I don't remember.
3. Do you recall if it included pages 7-12, which were allegedly lost according to the complaint?
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.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.
Your honor, if an objection is sustained, the answer can be struck as well.
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.
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.
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.Your honor, if an objection is sustained, the answer can be struck as well.
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.3. Do you recall if it included pages 7-12, which were allegedly lost according to the complaint?
The Court will post all the answers here upon the conclusion of questioning.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?
