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?
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?however I do have a follow-up for IamJeb_.
I believe that's correct.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?
Did you intend to post this in the closed court thread?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?
Your honor,Did you intend to post this in the closed court thread?
Granted.Your honor,
Illd like to request a 48h extension due to irl circumstances
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.
This case revolves around one central issue: can a murder result in real economic loss? Plaintiff emmythegremlin filed this action with the District Court of Redmont after Defendant roy405 allegedly killed her while she was engaged in writing a unique work into an in-game book and quill. On this central issue she claims and seeks relief for damages from the loss of unsaved progress within the book.
I. Facts
The facts of this case are as follows. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff was engaged in a commission of a literary work in-game, on a book and quill item. This was within private property, and was commissioned for $1,500. At some point during her work, it is alleged that Defendant entered the room she was working in and killed her. At the moment, Plaintiff claims she was wholly engaged in writing, and had the book open when she died. As a result, Plaintiff claims she lost five pages of unsaved writing.
Plaintiff sues Defendant on a theory of liability for any damages flowing through Defendant’s decision to murder her. As a result of her murder, Plaintiff claims she suffered damages as to the destruction of her property and earning capacity when the progress was lost, as well as loss of enjoyment.
II. Rule
Murder is a criminal violation that occurs when one player unlawfully kills another. Criminal Code Act (“CCA”) Part IV, § 3. Where there is both a civil violation and a criminal action for the same offense, a plaintiff may seek either civil penalties, civil damages for the listed amount under the CCA, or both. Redmont Civil Code Act (“RCCA”) Part II, § 4(3). Murder is not a compensable civil violation. RCCA.
Murder on its own is typically not enough to establish standing for a civil action. Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59. There is no established claim in statute, tort, or common law for civil damages flowing solely from a murder. MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67. Finally, the RCCA is not an exhaustive list of civil violations, and unlisted causes of action may be pursued as long as they exist within “common law principles or [precedent] supports such a claim.” Le9endz (citing RCCA Part II, § 3(1)(a)) (emphasis removed); see also Le9endz (“[It is] plausible that some past civil action for the mere act of murdering someone could give rise to a civil claim . . .”) .
In civil proceedings, the standard of proof for all claims is a balance of probabilities. Judicial Standards Act Part II, § 1.
III. Analysis
A. Much ado about causing
The first hurdle for Plaintiff to clear is whether, even if all alleged facts are true, Defendant’s alleged murder can establish liability for the other related claims. Redmontian courts have before held that generally, murder on its own is not a cognizable claim of action for plaintiffs to pursue. See Le9endz; MMiqa. However, the RCCA explicitly states that it is not an exhaustive list of remedies, and allows for other civil claims to arise where those claims are rooted in common law principles or precedent. RCCA Part II, § 3(1).
There is no precedent (as far as this court can tell) establishing murder as either an independent cause of action or a liability gateway to other harms that may result from the murder. See InfinityBen10 v. konradnbersej [2026] DCR 104 (citing Le9endz; MMiqa). Therefore, no common law exists on the subject, and we cannot use the precedent prong of the RCCA to Plaintiff’s benefit. Plaintiff’s contention that “[C]ivil damages may be sought for a crime with no criminal conviction required,” while technically correct, does not mean that any alleged offense under the CCA may automatically and in all cases be sued for damages. This is a falsehood as a matter of law, as we have plainly established. Id.
However, if we were to assume Plaintiff’s claims were all true it would be clear that some harm arose to Plaintiff and Defendant was somehow responsible for it. Given this, it would be absurd to rely on the assumption that it would be impossible for Plaintiff to find any relief in this exact matter. The basic principle of common law is the establishment of justice, and to “fill in the gaps” where the written law of the elected branches fails to do justice.
To say that there is no specific cause in law regarding civil recovery for murder and therefore no suit seeking relief from damages flowing from murder can ever prevail is in direct contradiction to justice. To take up that belief as law would be to say that any murder, regardless of its consequences or damages, could never be adjudicated in court and no private litigant could ever be afforded a remedy (and indeed, the only remedy would be the CCA’s prescribed penalties, and only to the government). This is obviously absurd. Congress has certainly not meant to insulate murderers from all consequences besides, at most, a find of $420 at the time of writing.
I find it evident, then, that while murder is in itself still not a viable independent action, murder can be a tortious action that causes harms, and those harms with the murder can be bundled to create a cause of action.
B. To kill an author(bird? Coming up with all of these media-themed pun titles is hard)
Resolving the ability for this case to proceed, we move to the merits. First at hand: did Defendant murder Plaintiff? The uncontested evidence of this case shows very clearly that Defendant killed Plaintiff. Though direct evidence is lacking as to if the murder in question occurred in the place Plaintiff alleges, the record provides ample circumstantial evidence and testimony to prove it.
To begin with, uncontested logs show Plaintiff stated she was in the property of interest: “[K]illing me kinda like... [sic] deleted everything . . . I was writing, on Cald’s property, to be sold [in] Cald’s business.” After the incident, the owner of the property banned Defendant from the property.
Additionally, witness testimony seems to very firmly show murder is the same one that occurred in the same place alleged. To begin with, Defendant’s own testimony speaks for itself: “im not rly sure what im supposed to say, but i think i saw smth about entering that plot previously? i did enter it previously several times before, but i have no proof of this. the 'private room' was not locked and had no signs saying it was private, door was open too. it might have been an apartment tho, unsure. either way, i did enter the plot before, as it was a place advertised in chat multiple times. XxTheoryxX also claimed this lawsuit "isn't personal", but both emmy and .caldiron have made repeated hostile remarks towards me both before and after the murder.”
This testimony from Defendant seems to confirm, very clearly, that he did murder Plaintiff, he murdered her on the specific plot in question, and that murder is the one contested here. I do not need to go through the rest of the evidence to beleaguer this point; it is plain and obvious that the murder and its location confirmed to have happened are the same murder and location alleged by Plaintiff. This fact is important to establish, and I explain it in detail here to show that all elements of an offense or claim must be made out. Had the murder not been shown to happen, or that it wasn’t done by Defendant, or that it wasn’t the same murder as the murder where Plaintiff alleges, this suit would have immediately failed at this step.
C. Murder, (while) she wrote
The subsequent relevant question is whether we can identify Plaintiff did indeed lose approximately fifteen minutes, or five pages, of unsaved writing when she was murdered. For context, a book and quill will save writing before it is signed and turned into an autographed book—but to do so, a user must press the “done” button at the bottom. Any other form of exiting the writing GUI—such as pressing escape, closing Minecraft, or dying—will result in all changes since the last “done” save being erased. See generally Book and Quill, Minecraft Wiki.
In the course of trial, Defendant admitted that at the time of the murder, Plaintiff appeared to be holding “some sort of read-able item.” Further, the undisputed and immediate post-murder text logs show the following:
D: keep inventory is on lol
P: keep inventory doesn’t [assumed expletive]’ing save books
P: i lost five full pages of written stuff
D: i can argue that she shouldve saved or that i had no way of knowing
P: i was writing, on Cald’s property, to be sold on Cald’s business
P: book in hand
D: means nothing
D: ill lose like 250 for allegedly murdering u.
While the above exchange does not definitively show that Plaintiff was in the middle of working, or even that she held the book in question, it does show an immediate and highly inflammatory post-murder reaction to the murder, which would be somewhat odd had she not lost something of value.
Indeed, the first thing Plaintiff remarked on was not anger that she had been killed, or that her privacy had been breached; but lamenting the lost work as a result of the murder. The evidence in the record definitively shows that at that point, Plaintiff had begun working on the book, and thus we know at least that there was something for Plaintiff to work on.
What do we make of all this? First, it is clear that there is no distinct and direct evidence that undoubtedly shows Plaintiff was working on the book. Barring someone recording themselves constantly, no direct evidence of such a circumstance could ever be possible. Surely, it is not so that we need direct evidence to prove that anything has happened, ever. One need not see the rock in order to know it has struck the water—the rippled waves are enough.
On the whole, the weight of the evidence greatly favors finding that Plaintiff was, on a balance of probabilities, more likely than not writing in the book at the time of the murder, and did indeed lose five pages, equivalent to about fifteen minutes of work.
As a result, I find that Plaintiff was murdered while she was writing in a book and as a result lost all of her unsaved progress, and that Defendant is liable for this damage and all damages flowing from it.
D. Civil violation and punishment
All that remains at this time is the remedy. Plaintiff seeks $27,500 for herself, plus legal fees. This number can be broken down first into $5,000 for compensatory damages from her property being destroyed and related harm to earning capacity, $7,500 for a loss of enjoyment and $15,000 in punitive damages for outrageous conduct.
It is here that we find a majority of Defendant’s argumentation. The first point of interest is that Plaintiff valued the book at $170, and thus any direct pecuniary loss must be valued at less than that. Though Plaintiff's initial filing does state the book was “listed for sale at approximately [$]170,” later testimony from the commissioner of the book showed this was only the price to sell the book to the general public, not the commission price. That price was set at $1,500.
There is merit to Defendant’s argument. How can someone cause more damage to a contracted piece of work than the work is worth? Nothing outside of the scope of the contract was harmed, no negative value (asides from the lost pages) was somehow added. The most that Plaintiff could recover from this portion of damages is $1,500, the full weight of the contract. Indeed, Plaintiff seems to recognize this: “Compensatory damages . . . restore harm to property . . . at the actual loss proven.”
The RCCA, in its section on damages, instructs that compensatory damages shall at all times be no more than the lower between actual damages or “the authorised [sic] statute’s limit.” Thus, having found that five pages were lost, it is clear that five pages worth of recovery should serve as adequate relief. Plaintiff alleges—and Defendant accepts—that the book was to be twenty-two pages in length, so the lost pages would represent about twenty-three per cent of the total work. Thus, Defendant should be liable for twenty-three per cent of the total commissioned fee, or $345 exactly.
Here, Plaintiff asks for these damages unrelated to any specific listed claim. As noted supra, it is surely within Congress’s intent to grant relief for a situation like this to provide for the common law core principle of justice, and so this court does so. I should note that under the RCCA, part seven discusses property torts. RCCA Part VII. Under this is “damage to property.” Id. § 1. While the end result would have been the same (the RCCA, as discussed supra, allows only the lesser between actual damages or those authorized by statute), citing to this cause of action would have made this entire process much faster and less burdensome on all parties, while not leaving anything of substance out.
As an aside, Defendant attempts to defend against this claim by saying they had no knowledge of Plaintiff’s unsaved work and the potential impacts of the murder. This is not a defense. “I was unaware there would be further harm” is not a reasonable or even cognizable defense for most situations where one intentionally causes harm to another. Indeed, it may not be a defense when any person causes any consequential damage ever. If you do cause damage, in most cases it stands to reason that justice demands you compensate for it. This, of course, should not broadly open the doors to all sorts of claims, but stands as a general statement of remedies when a claim has already been firmly established. Further, the contention that the damage was not permanent is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the content itself was available elsewhere, Plaintiff still had to take the time to transcribe that content in-game. This labor was lost, and so there is a harm that is compensable.
Next, Plaintiff requests $7,500 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment. The RCCA defines loss of enjoyment damages as those awarded when a party suffers some injury to their “ability to engage in certain activities,” such that it changes the way or amount they enjoyed those activities prior to the injury. As a result of the disruption, her delivery of the finished work product was delayed.
Plaintiff does not allege any longstanding decrease in her ability to write, nor does she allege or show any faltered desire to write. There appears to be very little to justify any “loss of enjoyment” damages beyond the mere fact that she was inconvenienced after fifteen minutes of work. The RCCA allows a presiding officer to determine loss of enjoyment by reasonable person tests or “any other mechanism” a presiding officer finds persuasive.
Here, the prevailing concern is whether Plaintiff suffered such great injuries that her ability to enjoy the game and community were altered by this one encounter. If it was, the law authorizes extra damages to be given in an attempt to remediate those injuries. If it was not, granting those damages would not only be contrary to the law, but also would open the door for any suffering to be coupled with a “loss of enjoyment.”
I find it clear that loss of enjoyment is not meant to be an extra topping to spread on every civil claim where a party was injured, but rather a somewhat rare spice to be used infrequently, and only when called for. Here, I take the approach of “you know it when you see it.” I do not think it would be at all reasonable for any rational person to find permanent injury to their ability to engage in any activity here.
Yes, it was unkind and surely upsetting, perhaps even deeply so. But to say that one murder and fifteen minutes of work done could, for any appreciable length of time, diminish one’s capacity or ability to enjoy any part of the server is just short of ridiculous. Anybody that has played a role-playing game or worked on a computer for long enough knows the feeling of losing potentially several hours, days, or weeks of work. Is this upsetting? Yes. Should it necessarily, or even often-times, lead to the victim of such a loss losing part of their ability to enjoy that activity? I cannot say it should. To quote the 1994 film Forrest Gump: “Shit happens.”
Finally, Plaintiff requests punitive damages in the amount of $15,000. Punitive damages are a type of deterring punishment given when a party’s actions are so outrageous that they disturb the basic fabric of civilized society, and demand harsh action be taken. In assessing these damages, we look to “[T]he character of the defendant’s act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.” MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27 (quoting Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20).
Defendant went into a private location, killed someone for no apparent reason, and caused her to lose not an insignificant amount of time. The record plainly shows that Defendant, just prior to the murder, was on a murder cooldown. He was unrepentant and at times mocking towards Plaintiff. When told a real genuine loss was at hand, instead of offering sympathy he merely retorted that Plaintiff couldn’t prove it, and then stated her loss meant nothing and he would lose “like 250” for his actions.
You do not have a right to attack others in Redmont. If your actions cause harm, you may certainly be found liable for that harm in court. The purpose of the law is to see justice done; and there is no justice when parties believe they can continuously cause harm without punishment. Defendant’s actions certainly demonstrate a "substantial departure from acceptable standards of behavior,” and are absolutely a depraved display of “oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.” Defendant “intended to cause harm or loss,” “acted knowing their conduct was likely [to harm another] person,” and “acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur.”
I find Defendant’s actions—before and after the incident—so outrageous and reprehensible that serious punitive damages are indeed warranted. Genuine harm was done, and I have little faith that even this lawsuit would do much to dissuade Defendant or others like him without harsher punishment. Therefore, as accorded to and empowered by law, I award the full requested punitive damages of $15,000. As Defendant has not demonstrated (nor even feigned) genuine remorse or taken steps to remedy the harm, no diminution of the award is authorized by the RCCA. RCCA Part III, § 3(3).
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, I find Defendant liable for the destruction of Plaintiff’s property in the amount of $345, as well as $15,000 in punitive damages. Legal fees shall be awarded at a rate of thirty per cent, or $4,603.50. The total owed shall be the sum of these, $19,948.5. So ordered.
