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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katto

Katto

"If you want a thing done well, do it yourself."
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Education Department
5th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Contemptable
KattoDE
KattoDE
Professor
Joined
May 8, 2023
Messages
290

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.

1773788961386.png


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
 

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.

 

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.
Click to expand...
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]
Click to expand...
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

 
Julia_ said:

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

Click to expand...
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_ said:
Defendant moves to skip discover with consent from opposing party.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Katto said:
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.
Click to expand...
Defendant confirms this. I'd like to note to the Court that this supersedes my previous instructions in #9.
 
Katto said:
Plaintiff concurs.
Click to expand...
discovery is hereby over.
Katto said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Writ of Summons

@IndexNursefather 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.

 
IndexNursefather said:
Your honour, i am present.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
  1. Do you agree to be the witness for this trial by combat?
  2. If you agree to be the witness, would you please coordinate a time with the participants and then let the Court know of the results?
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
TRIAL BY COMBAT VERDICT — KattoDE v. JuliaMC_ [2026] DCR 31

This verdict arises from trial by combat; it does not constitute precedent in any way, shape, or form (JSA, Part II, Section 7(4)(e)).

As the Court’s witness has certified that the Plaintiff has won the trial by combat (Post No. 22), the Court must decide all questions of fact in favor of the victor (JSA, Part II, Section 7(4)(c)), thought the Court must answer questions of law for itself (ibid). The Court thus proceeds to an analysis of the case assuming any possible question of fact would cut in favor of the Plaintiff, but applies the law through its own reading.

Two claims for relief were presented. The first is that the Plaintiff “is a very esteemed politician and his skill with the quill is undeniable” (Compl., Section III.1). The second is that “Dismissing a letter as ‘very poorly written" directly attacks [Plaintiff’s] personal honour and esteem as a writer” (id., Section III.2). One prayer for relief was sought: “$10.000 in reputational damages for this outrageous conduct” (id., Section IV.1).

We must first determine whether any claim here is cognizable. The first clearly is not: that the Plaintiff is an esteemed political and a skilled writer is assumed as true given the result of the Trial by Combat, but this itself is not actually a cognizable claim for relief. The second one claims that the Plaintiff’s “personal honour” and “esteem as a writer” were each harmed. Does this allege a cognizable tort?

Thus, we turn to examine existing torts.. Intentional affliction of emotional distress is not cognizable in Redmont (BurgersBeware v. Modzy & Spyders_Crypt [2026] DCR 23, Post No. 30), and we cannot grant emotional damages (ibid.). Defamation, libel, and slander each require that the alleged tortfeasor “make[] a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation” (RCCA, Part V, Sections 1(a); see also RCCA, Part V 2(a) and 3(a), incorporating 1(a)’s requirement by reference) and that the alleged tortfeasor’s statement be “presented as fact rather than opinion” (RCCA, Part V, Sections 1(c); see also RCCA, Part V 2(a) and 3(a), incorporating 1(a)’s requirement by reference). But the second claim for relief doesn’t explicitly allege falsity of any statement; it simply says that the Defendant’s statements were attacks on the Plaintiff’s esteem and honor.

Even so, the Defendant understood the claim to relief to be defamation (See Answer to Complaint, Section II.3, alleging Plaintiff had not presented “a valid argument when attempting to prove defamation”). As previously noted by the District Court: “The question on whether a claim for relief is stated then becomes, essentially, whether [the claim for relief] identified a specific, singular civil tort. Defendant's counsel, after all, needs to be able to know from the Complaint what they are defending against” (fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22, Post No. 57, emphasis mine). As Defendant understood this alleged tort to be defamation, and we see no reason to question that understanding, we find the claim for relief is valid under the RCCA.

As we must treat all possible facts in favor of the Plaintiff, the Court finds the Defendant liable for Defamation of the Plaintiff by making a false statement that harmed the Plaintiff’s reputation in front of 40 online players. We also shall find, as a matter of fact, that every factual element of outrageousness for punitive damages is met. The Court thus orders as follows:

  1. Defendant JuliaMC_ is liable to the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 for punitive damages arising from defamation.
  2. Defendant JuliaMC_ is liable to the Plaintiff for $3,000 in legal fees.
  3. No portion of this verdict may, in any way, constitute precedent that can be applied to other cases. The verdict likewise does not constitute evidence that can be used in other proceedings with respect to the underlying factual allegations contained in the complaint (JSA, Part II, Section 7(4)(d)-(e)).
In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top