Lawsuit: Pending KattoDE v. JuliaMC_ [2026] DCR 31

[Katto]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Katto Strophe-Bragança (KattoDE)
Plaintiff

v.

Julia Tempest (JuliaMC_)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On this seventeenth of march, two thousand twenty-six (17 March 2026) the Defendant, Julia Tempest, has insulted a letter i had sent to her as "poorly written". This directly insults my personal honour.


I. PARTIES
1. KattoDE
2. JuliaMC_

II. FACTS
1. On 17 March 2026, at approximately 23:30 o'clock Central European time, KattoDE had sent a letter to JuliaMC_ in the form of a written book in a parcel.
2. Upon reading the letter, Julia publically wrote "very poorly written." in global chat with roughly fourty players online that could read the statement.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Katto Strophe-Bragança is a very esteemed politician and his skill with the quill is undeniable.
2. Dismissing a letter as "very poorly written" directly attacks his personal honour and esteem as a writer.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10.000 in reputational damages for this outrageous conduct.

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 eighteenth day of March 2026

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Julia_ , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of KattoDE v. JuliaMC_ [2026] DCR 31

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.

 

[Julia_]

The Defendant is present, Your Honour.

 

[dearev]

The Defendant is present, Your Honour.

present an answer to complaint within 48 hours

 

[Julia_]

Answer to Complaint

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

Katto Strophe-Bragança (KattoDE)
Plaintiff

v.

Julia Tempest (JuliaMC_)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant AFFIRMS that on 17 March 2026, at approximately 23:30 o'clock Central European time, Plaintiff had sent a letter to Defendant in the form of a written book in a parcel.
2. Defendant AFFIRMS that upon reading the letter, Defendant publicly wrote "very poorly written." in global chat but DENIES that roughly forty players online could read the statement.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff is not an esteemed politician. The Oxford English Dictionary, a reputable and highly trusted English dictionary worldwide, defines the word "esteemed" as:

held in great respect; admired.

An example of this can be seen in the State of the Commonwealth for AUGUST 2025 (D-001). Plaintiff, who was then serving in the House, only had 49.18% approval. This is compared to other figures serving in the House, such as then-Deputy Speaker Sir-Dogeington, who had 57.38% approval. Or then-Representative Smami, who had 65.57% approval. Defendant therefore concludes that Plaintiff does not meet the definition of "esteemed".

2. Plaintiff has provided no proof whatsoever showing or proving that roughly 40 players where online at the time of the alleged incident. Further, even if that number of players were online, it does not necessarily mean
they were opted into the global chat or were not AFK (away from keyboard).

3. In [2026] DCR 11, the Honourable and Learned Muggy21 ruled (#115):

[...] mere change in perception is still not a harm; This Court deals with actionable harms borne of a legal fault, not a change in social standing devoid of a valid nexus. Essentially, the mere fact that someone thinks less of you is not, in of itself, a valid argument when attempting to prove defamation.
[Emphasis Mine]

Plaintiff claims that they are an "esteemed politician" and that "dismissing a letter as 'very poorly written' directly attacks his personal honour and esteem as a writer." As the Honourable and Learned Muggy21 ruled in [2026] DCR 11, the mere fact that Plaintiff's honour and esteem was "attacked" as a writer (i.e. certain people will think less of them), is not a valid argument when attempting to prove defamation.

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.

D-001, SOTC Report - AUGUST 2025

Witness List:
- Katto Strophe-Bragança (Plaintiff)

DATED: This 18th day of March 2026

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

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

Katto Strophe-Bragança (KattoDE)
Plaintiff

v.

Julia Tempest (JuliaMC_)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant AFFIRMS that on 17 March 2026, at approximately 23:30 o'clock Central European time, Plaintiff had sent a letter to Defendant in the form of a written book in a parcel.
2. Defendant AFFIRMS that upon reading the letter, Defendant publicly wrote "very poorly written." in global chat but DENIES that roughly forty players online could read the statement.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff is not an esteemed politician. The Oxford English Dictionary, a reputable and highly trusted English dictionary worldwide, defines the word "esteemed" as:

An example of this can be seen in the State of the Commonwealth for AUGUST 2025 (D-001). Plaintiff, who was then serving in the House, only had 49.18% approval. This is compared to other figures serving in the House, such as then-Deputy Speaker Sir-Dogeington, who had 57.38% approval. Or then-Representative Smami, who had 65.57% approval. Defendant therefore concludes that Plaintiff does not meet the definition of "esteemed".

2. Plaintiff has provided no proof whatsoever showing or proving that roughly 40 players where online at the time of the alleged incident. Further, even if that number of players were online, it does not necessarily mean
they were opted into the global chat or were not AFK (away from keyboard).

3. In [2026] DCR 11, the Honourable and Learned Muggy21 ruled (#115):

Plaintiff claims that they are an "esteemed politician" and that "dismissing a letter as 'very poorly written' directly attacks his personal honour and esteem as a writer." As the Honourable and Learned Muggy21 ruled in [2026] DCR 11, the mere fact that Plaintiff's honour and esteem was "attacked" as a writer (i.e. certain people will think less of them), is not a valid argument when attempting to prove defamation.

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.

D-001, SOTC Report - AUGUST 2025

Witness List:
- Katto Strophe-Bragança (Plaintiff)

DATED: This 18th day of March 2026

we shall now begin discovery lasting 5 days from this date. if both parties agree an ingame trial may be done, same as to ending discovery early.

 

[Julia_]

Defendant moves to skip discover with consent from opposing party.

 

[Katto]

Plaintiff concurs.

 

[Julia_]

Defendant moves to skip discover with consent from opposing party.

Defendant formally withdraws and instead moves for a Trial by Combat in accordance with the Trial by Combat Act. This Trial by Combat shall take in the Town of Aventura in the Weehawken region between Plaintiff and Defendant. Each side may use any weapon they want. This Trial by Combat shall follow the Ten Duel Commandments from Hamilton: An American Musical.

 

[Katto]

I agree with this, i shall agree upon a set of rules and conditions with the Defense in private and state our final rules here.

 

[Katto]

Your Honour, we have agreed upon the following rules and conditions:
(1) Both sides appoint a second, each.
(i) A second is a trusted representative that will oversee the duel and negotiate with the other side.
(2) A doctor shall be on site. They shall turn around at the onset of the duel to have deniability.
(3) The duel shall take place right before dawn (5am in-game time) in Weehawken, Aventura.
(4) Both sides shall use a Flintlock in the duel.
(5) Count to ten paces, then fire one bullet.
(6) If either side is satisfied after the first shot, the duel shall be finished.
(i) This can be a miss, hit or death of the opponent.
(7) No armour other than cosmetic hats may be worn during the duel.
(8) The rules provided by the song "Ten Duel Commandments" from Hamilton: An American Musical shall be followed in the procedure of the duel.

 

[Julia_]

Your Honour, we have agreed upon the following rules and conditions:
(1) Both sides appoint a second, each.
(i) A second is a trusted representative that will oversee the duel and negotiate with the other side.
(2) A doctor shall be on site. They shall turn around at the onset of the duel to have deniability.
(3) The duel shall take place right before dawn (5am in-game time) in Weehawken, Aventura.
(4) Both sides shall use a Flintlock in the duel.
(5) Count to ten paces, then fire one bullet.
(6) If either side is satisfied after the first shot, the duel shall be finished.
(i) This can be a miss, hit or death of the opponent.
(7) No armour other than cosmetic hats may be worn during the duel.
(8) The rules provided by the song "Ten Duel Commandments" from Hamilton: An American Musical shall be followed in the procedure of the duel.

Defendant confirms this. I'd like to note to the Court that this supersedes my previous instructions in #9.

 

[dearev]

Plaintiff concurs.

discovery is hereby over.

Your Honour, we have agreed upon the following rules and conditions:
(1) Both sides appoint a second, each.
(i) A second is a trusted representative that will oversee the duel and negotiate with the other side.
(2) A doctor shall be on site. They shall turn around at the onset of the duel to have deniability.
(3) The duel shall take place right before dawn (5am in-game time) in Weehawken, Aventura.
(4) Both sides shall use a Flintlock in the duel.
(5) Count to ten paces, then fire one bullet.
(6) If either side is satisfied after the first shot, the duel shall be finished.
(i) This can be a miss, hit or death of the opponent.
(7) No armour other than cosmetic hats may be worn during the duel.
(8) The rules provided by the song "Ten Duel Commandments" from Hamilton: An American Musical shall be followed in the procedure of the duel.

This is aknowledged by the court. these rules shall prevail during the trial by combat. Acording to the Judicial Standards Act II.(7).(4).(b) the court requests a impartial wittness to certify the outcome be appointed by both parties. In the case that one cannot be agreed upon, the court clarifies that for the purposes of this case if a witness cannot be selected, the judicial officer may act as a wittness.