Lawsuit: In Session Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59

[Le9endz_]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Le9endz_(Self Represented)
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I was at the airport thinking of where to go when all of a sudden AussiBloke25 ran to the entrance of the airport and began shooting at people with his firearm. Many people died(including me) but it all happened so fast I couldn't proccess what just happened. After I died I called 911 and then called then returned to the airport only to be killed again(as seen in the video). I had also called the Police to the airport but no one came.


I. PARTIES
1. Le9endz_(Plaintiff)
2. AussieBloke25(Defendant)
3. Governemnt

II. FACTS
1. Le9endz_ was at the airport
2. AussieBloke25 came from the road.
3. AussieBloke25 had killed many people
4. AussieBloke25 (supposedly) left after no one was there anymore.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Tort of Wrongful Death: The Defendant executed multiple intentional, unprovoked PvP executions against the Plaintiff in a designated non-PvP roleplay zone (the airport), directly violating the fundamental protections of Redmont common law.
2. Tort of Wrongful Property Deprivation: The Defendant’s actions caused an illegal and involuntary transfer of the Plaintiff's active inventory items upon death, causing immediate economic harm.
3. Loss of Enjoyment under the Legal Damages Act:
1. (a) Pursuant to Section III of the Legal Damages Act, "Loss of Enjoyment" is legally defined as situations where an injured party has "diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm."
2. (b) The Defendant purposefully camped a major public transit hub to repeatedly execute the Plaintiff, which directly and entirely stripped away the Plaintiff's ability to participate in server life "beyond conventional gameplay mechanics."
3. (c) In accordance with established judicial precedent within the Commonwealth of Redmont, egregious and continuous targeted harassment disrupting core gameplay loop metrics warrants a non-pecuniary compensation award of $25,000.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5000 from the court due to Government and Police negligence.
2. $5000 from the defendant due to lack of enjoyment.
3. $10000 from the defendant due to killing Le9endz_ twice.


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 27 day of February 2026

Video Evidence: Watch IMG_3150 | Streamable

Clerk note: First Prayer for Relief struck by court.

 

[dearev]

I wish to present this court a brief on why you cant sue for murder and why the court should charge the plaintiff with frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

The Commonwealth of Redmont (cc: @Superwoops) and AussieBloke25 are ordered to appear before the District Court in the case of Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59.

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.

 

[Le9endz_]

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Your Honour, The Plaintiff recognizes the technical error in the initial filing. I hereby move to amend the complaint, changing the charge from "Murder" to the correct civil equivalent of **Wrongful Death**. The facts of the case remain completely identical: the Defendant unlawfully caused the death of the Plaintiff, resulting in a loss of health, items, and severe financial damages. Because this is a simple correction of terminology and was not filed with malicious intent, I respectfully request that the court deny any third-party requests to charge the Plaintiff with a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Franciscus]

I wish to present this court a brief on why you cant sue for murder and why the court should charge the plaintiff with frivolous lawsuit.

Granted, former Magistrate Dearev.

 

[Superwoops]

Writ of Summons

The Commonwealth of Redmont (cc: @Superwoops) and AussieBloke25 are ordered to appear before the District Court in the case of Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59.

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.

The Commonwealth is present.

 

[Franciscus]

The Commonwealth is present.

The Commonwealth is named as a party and has been summonsed on that basis. The Commonwealth shall be permitted 48 hours to brief the Court on whether or not the Commonwealth ought be joined to this case based on the factual allegations and claims for relief presented. Plaintiff will have 48 hours thereafter to respond to the brief.

Commonwealth’s brief need not be an answer to complaint; such would only be required should the Commonwealth be ordered joined by this Court.

 

[ameslap]

The Commonwealth is named as a party and has been summonsed on that basis. The Commonwealth shall be permitted 48 hours to brief the Court on whether or not the Commonwealth ought be joined to this case based on the factual allegations and claims for relief presented. Plaintiff will have 48 hours thereafter to respond to the brief.

Commonwealth’s brief need not be an answer to complaint; such would only be required should the Commonwealth be ordered joined by this Court.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF ON JOINING

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth should not be joined in this case. The Plaintiff's only allegation against the Commonwealth is that the police did not respond when he summoned 911. The Complaint identifies no law creating civil liability for the alleged failure to respond, and it contains no facts establishing that the Commonwealth had a duty, breached it, and caused damages to the Plaintiff.

At most, the Plaintiff is alleging dissatisfaction with law enforcement response time, not that the Commonwealth acted in a way to be joined in this case.

Thank you

 

[Franciscus]

Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF ON JOINING

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth should not be joined in this case. The Plaintiff's only allegation against the Commonwealth is that the police did not respond when he summoned 911. The Complaint identifies no law creating civil liability for the alleged failure to respond, and it contains no facts establishing that the Commonwealth had a duty, breached it, and caused damages to the Plaintiff.

At most, the Plaintiff is alleging dissatisfaction with law enforcement response time, not that the Commonwealth acted in a way to be joined in this case.

Thank you

 

[Le9endz_]

Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.

I accept that the Commonwealth will not join this case but I will proceed to sue the defendant, AussieBloke25.

Thank You

 

[AussieBloke25]

To all parties,

I hereby move that the suit be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff has produced no evidence bar a written statement. As there is no evidence of sustenance to review, the Plaintiff simply does not have a case.

I also note that I, the defendant, currently have a balance below $400 and assets valued no more then $500. There is nothing to be made from this case.

It is my opinion that this is a frivolous lawsuit that wastes the courts time. The "throwing spaghetti at the wall approach" that the Plaintiff has taken when naming the Commonwealth in the case indicates to me that the Plaintiff's motives in this case is not that of justice, but of a quick payday.

It also appears that the Plaintiff is merely trying to have a 'YeahJaron' moment and replicate the 'drama' that was experienced during the recording of that video. I note that the Plaintiff joined a few days after the posting of the infamous 'YeahJaron' video. The Plaintiff enters this case with no lawyer, no understanding of the legal system and no real case.

Regards

Aussie Bloke 25
Defendant.

A note. There was no professional valuation of the Defendants assets, and the dollar values provided are estimates.
The Defendant would also like noted that there is a major difference in time zones across this case. The Defendent is in UTC + 8

 

[Franciscus]

To all parties,

I hereby move that the suit be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff has produced no evidence bar a written statement. As there is no evidence of sustenance to review, the Plaintiff simply does not have a case.

I also note that I, the defendant, currently have a balance below $400 and assets valued no more then $500. There is nothing to be made from this case.

It is my opinion that this is a frivolous lawsuit that wastes the courts time. The "throwing spaghetti at the wall approach" that the Plaintiff has taken when naming the Commonwealth in the case indicates to me that the Plaintiff's motives in this case is not that of justice, but of a quick payday.

It also appears that the Plaintiff is merely trying to have a 'YeahJaron' moment and replicate the 'drama' that was experienced during the recording of that video. I note that the Plaintiff joined a few days after the posting of the infamous 'YeahJaron' video. The Plaintiff enters this case with no lawyer, no understanding of the legal system and no real case.

Regards

Aussie Bloke 25
Defendant.

A note. There was no professional valuation of the Defendants assets, and the dollar values provided are estimates.
The Defendant would also like noted that there is a major difference in time zones across this case. The Defendent is in UTC + 8

Under Rule 5.1, "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions". Because the Court limits the number of discovery rules at which one can submit a Motion to Dismiss (see: Rule 5.15), the Court cannot overlook this deficiency in the filing and denies the motion due to procedural defect.

 

[Franciscus]

@AussieBloke25 you have 48 hours to file an answer to complaint. If you would like to request a public defender, please let the Court know in that time so that one can be appointed for you.

 

[Le9endz_]

To all parties,

I hereby move that the suit be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff has produced no evidence bar a written statement. As there is no evidence of sustenance to review, the Plaintiff simply does not have a case.

I also note that I, the defendant, currently have a balance below $400 and assets valued no more then $500. There is nothing to be made from this case.

It is my opinion that this is a frivolous lawsuit that wastes the courts time. The "throwing spaghetti at the wall approach" that the Plaintiff has taken when naming the Commonwealth in the case indicates to me that the Plaintiff's motives in this case is not that of justice, but of a quick payday.

It also appears that the Plaintiff is merely trying to have a 'YeahJaron' moment and replicate the 'drama' that was experienced during the recording of that video. I note that the Plaintiff joined a few days after the posting of the infamous 'YeahJaron' video. The Plaintiff enters this case with no lawyer, no understanding of the legal system and no real case.

Regards

Aussie Bloke 25
Defendant.

A note. There was no professional valuation of the Defendants assets, and the dollar values provided are estimates.
The Defendant would also like noted that there is a major difference in time zones across this case. The Defendent is in UTC + 8

To AussieBloke25

I do have evidence since I attached a link to streamables where if you can see it’s a video of my gameplay.

Also may I regard the fact that I do understand the legal system and I am a solicitor which I managed to pass my test because I have real world law knowledge.

Even though your balance is already in debt if you were to pay me you would still have to pay me off to finally get to $0.

My timezone is UTC 00:00/GMT.

Regards
Le9endz_
Plaintiff

 

[AussieBloke25]

To whom it may concern,

As the defendant, I hereby consent to SolidLawFirm representing me in DCR 59 [2026]

 

[Franciscus]

To AussieBloke25

I do have evidence since I attached a link to streamables where if you can see it’s a video of my gameplay.

Also may I regard the fact that I do understand the legal system and I am a solicitor which I managed to pass my test because I have real world law knowledge.

Even though your balance is already in debt if you were to pay me you would still have to pay me off to finally get to $0.

My timezone is UTC 00:00/GMT.

Regards
Le9endz_
Plaintiff

Howdy,

Please do not make filings except when permitted. Because the motion to dismiss was already denied (Post No. 12), no response was warranted nor necessary at that time.

 

[Le9endz_]

Howdy,

Please do not make filings except when permitted. Because the motion to dismiss was already denied (Post No. 12), no response was warranted nor necessary at that time.

Hello,

Ok, sorry I just wanted to clarify with him.

 

[FloorIsTired]

Your honor,

I am here as an associate of Solid Law representing our client, AussieBloke25, here is our answer to the complaint:

Answer to Complaint

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

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25 (Represented by SolidLawFirm)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm
2. Neither Affirm Nor Deny
3. Neither Affirm Nor Deny
4. Neither Affirm Nor Deny

II. DEFENCES
1. All stated claims for relief are not grantable under relevant statute.
2. Legal Damages Act was repealed by the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act.
3. No evidence indicating the plaintiff was killed a second time.
4. Given the bold errors in filing, and the prior admonishments for a deficient claim from another judicial officer for what is effectively the same claim- this meets the bar for a frivolous lawsuit.

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 28th day of May 2026

We also seek to file a separate motion to dismiss according to the courts rules and procedure:

Motion

On behalf of AussieBloke25
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the Complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rules 5.5 (Lack of Claim), 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), and 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of the Court Rules and Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Lack of Claim​

1. Failure to Prove Relief 1
Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim):

A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.

Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for relief. In Claim for Relief 1, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Death," but identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating a wrongful death claim for an in-game murder. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant killed Plaintiff, but murder is a criminal allegation and is not itself a civil claim for damages.

2. Failure to Prove Relief 2
In Claim for Relief 2, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Property Deprivation," but again identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating that tort. Plaintiff also pleads no specific inventory items lost, no value of those items, and no facts showing that any property was transferred to or retained by the Defendant. Of which it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for a player to drop items on death within Redmont.

3. Failure to Prove Relief 3: Loss of Enjoyment
In Claim for Relief 3, Plaintiff invokes Loss of Enjoyment under the Legal Damages Act, which has since been repealed in favor of the RCCA, if it may pleasure the court the defense will assume the plaintiff meant to reference the RCCA, but even so the facts alleged do not support that relief. Plaintiff's own Fact 4 states that "AussieBloke25 (supposedly) left after no one was there anymore." That allegation contradicts Plaintiff's later claim that Defendant "purposefully camped" the airport and engaged in "egregious and continuous targeted harassment." At most, Plaintiff pleads a brief incident at the airport, not a continuing deprivation of Plaintiff's ability to use public transit or participate in server life.

II. No Standing
Under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction):

A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case.

and Rule 2.1 (Standing Application):

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

Plaintiff has not established standing. Plaintiff has not shown a concrete civil injury caused by Defendant that is actionable under civil law, has not shown that the cause of injury was against the law in a civilly actionable way, and has not shown that the requested remedies are available under relevant law.

Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief is also unsupported by the Complaint. Plaintiff requests $5,000 "from the court due to Government and Police negligence," but the Complaint pleads no facts showing that the Government owed Plaintiff a duty, breached that duty, caused Plaintiff's injury, or are proper parties to this action. Plaintiff also requests $10,000 "due to killing Le9endz_ twice," but does not identify a civil damages provision authorizing that amount.

III. Previously Dismissed As Critically Deficient
Under Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel):

A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if a case with a similar or, more exceptionally, same fact set has already been previously litigated.

This case arises from the same or substantially similar fact set previously litigated in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58. That case was dismissed as a critically deficient complaint. Plaintiff has now refiled the same underlying dispute with the only change having been the addition of the "Government" as a party to the complaint, of which has decidedly not been enjoined.

The plaintiff negligently left core defects unresolved around unsupported civil causes of action, insufficient factual pleading, and unsupported damages. The plaintiff's agreement to not enjoin the commonwealth means that the plaintiff consequently has filed the same complaint that was dismissed for critical deficiencies in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58.

For the above reasons, dismissal with prejudice is warranted under Rule 5.16 (Prejudice Rule):

A case where a Motion to Dismiss is successful can only be retried if the case was dismissed without prejudice, although a case dismissed with prejudice may be appealed. The presiding judge shall ultimately make the decision on whether or not the case should be dismissed with or without prejudice.

If the presiding judge fails to specify if it was dismissed with or without prejudice, it is assumed it was dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff was already placed on notice of the deficiencies in [2026] DCR 58 and had an opportunity to cure them before refiling. A second dismissal without prejudice would permit repetitive filings over the same deficient claims and impose unnecessary burden on the Defendant and the Court.

IV. On Frivolous Claims
The Defendant further notes that the Court Rules recognize frivolous claims as a proper basis for dismissal, and the Court Rules and Procedures recognize that a legal case with "no serious purpose or value" may constitute a Frivolous Court Case. Plaintiff's decision to refile a materially deficient complaint after [2026] DCR 58 supports dismissal with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

DATED: This 28th day of May 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Discovery begins now and shall last for 5 days. Plaintiff shall have 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Franciscus]

The Commonwealth is named as a party and has been summonsed on that basis. The Commonwealth shall be permitted 48 hours to brief the Court on whether or not the Commonwealth ought be joined to this case based on the factual allegations and claims for relief presented. Plaintiff will have 48 hours thereafter to respond to the brief.

Commonwealth’s brief need not be an answer to complaint; such would only be required should the Commonwealth be ordered joined by this Court.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF ON JOINING

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth should not be joined in this case. The Plaintiff's only allegation against the Commonwealth is that the police did not respond when he summoned 911. The Complaint identifies no law creating civil liability for the alleged failure to respond, and it contains no facts establishing that the Commonwealth had a duty, breached it, and caused damages to the Plaintiff.

At most, the Plaintiff is alleging dissatisfaction with law enforcement response time, not that the Commonwealth acted in a way to be joined in this case.

Thank you

I accept that the Commonwealth will not join this case but I will proceed to sue the defendant, AussieBloke25.

Thank You

Consistent with Rule 2.2, the Court dismisses the first prayer for relief sua sponte for lack of standing (see: Rule 2.1). The Commonwealth is dismissed from this action and the prayer shall be struck.

 

[Le9endz_]

Your Honor, here is my formal objection to Solid Law's motion to dismiss. They are trying to twist the rules to get away with harassment.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

YOUR HONOR,

The Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The defense relies heavily on narrow technicalities and outright mischaracterizes my claims. The facts presented in this filing establish valid causes of action under active Redmont statutes.


I. REBUTTAL TO LACK OF CLAIM (RULE 5.5)

1. Claim 1 (Civil Liability for Wrongful Death):
   The defense argues that "murder" is strictly a criminal matter. However, Chapter 5 of the Redmont Civil Code (RCC) (Torts and Civil Liability) explicitly establishes civil liability for any individual who intentionally causes unjustified harm, distress, or loss to another player. Criminal prosecution does not shield a defendant from civil consequences. If the specific phrasing of "Wrongful Death" is a structural issue for the court, I request leave to amend the charge to Civil Assault and Battery under the RCC, rather than dismissing the action entirely.
2. Claim 2 (Wrongful Property Deprivation):
   Solid Law claims it is mechanically impossible to drop items upon death in Redmont. This completely misrepresents how server mechanics actually function. Inventory loss, performance penalties, and direct financial costs from respawning absolutely occur in certain wilderness zones and PvP plugin environments. The exact valuation and breakdown of what was lost is a matter for the Discovery Phase of this trial, not a ground for a pre-trial dismissal under Rule 5.5.
3. Claim 3 (Loss of Enjoyment):
   While the defense is correct that the older Legal Damages Act was modified, I formally ask the Court to apply the updated statutory framework under Section 3 (Remedies and Damages) of the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act (RCCA). The Defendant’s targeted camping at the literal server location and warp named "airport" directly blocked me from using public transit infrastructure. I have the chat logs and death timestamps to prove this was a continuous, targeted effort to stop me from playing. This is a clear, actionable restriction on a player's ability to reasonably access and enjoy server functions under Section 3 of the RCCA.
   

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING (RULE 2.1)

The Plaintiff completely satisfies the standing test outlined in Court Rule 2.1:

• Injury: I suffered documented in-game deaths and targeted harassment by a clear second party.
• Legality: Unlawful targeted killing and blocking public infrastructure violate the civil protections found in RCC Chapter 5.
• Remedy: Section 3 of the RCCA grants this Court the explicit power to award monetary damages to compensate for lost time, disruption of play, and distress.
  

III. REBUTTAL TO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (RULE 5.9 & RULE 5.16)

The defense is misapplying Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel). Collateral Estoppel requires that a fact set has already been fully litigated—meaning a trial took place and a final verdict on the merits was reached. Case DCR 58 was dismissed without prejudice due to critical procedural deficiencies before any arguments or trial ever started.

Under Court Rule 5.16 (Prejudice Rule), a case dismissed without prejudice explicitly retains the legal right to be refiled once those filing defects are fixed. Because DCR 59 features a modified framework and updated context, it is a perfectly valid refiling. Collateral Estoppel cannot apply here.


CONCLUSION & PRAYER

This lawsuit is filed with a serious purpose to address ongoing harassment and civil wrongdoing. It is not a frivolous claim.

I respectfully request that the Court:

1. Deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
2. Grant Leave to Amend the complaint within 48 hours so I can explicitly realign the wording with RCC Chapter 5 and RCCA Section 3 to satisfy the Court's formatting rules.
   

DATED: This 28th day of May 2026
SUBMITTED BY: Le9endz_

 

[Smallfries]

All deadlines tolled from this moment pending reassignment.

 

[Smallfries]

I will be presiding officer in this case.

We also seek to file a separate motion to dismiss according to the courts rules and procedure:

Motion​

On behalf of AussieBloke25
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the Complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rules 5.5 (Lack of Claim), 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel), and 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) of the Court Rules and Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Lack of Claim​

1. Failure to Prove Relief 1
Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim):
Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for relief. In Claim for Relief 1, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Death," but identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating a wrongful death claim for an in-game murder. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant killed Plaintiff, but murder is a criminal allegation and is not itself a civil claim for damages.

2. Failure to Prove Relief 2
In Claim for Relief 2, Plaintiff pleads "Tort of Wrongful Property Deprivation," but again identifies no statute, civil code provision, or recognized civil cause of action creating that tort. Plaintiff also pleads no specific inventory items lost, no value of those items, and no facts showing that any property was transferred to or retained by the Defendant. Of which it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for a player to drop items on death within Redmont.

3. Failure to Prove Relief 3: Loss of Enjoyment
In Claim for Relief 3, Plaintiff invokes Loss of Enjoyment under the Legal Damages Act, which has since been repealed in favor of the RCCA, if it may pleasure the court the defense will assume the plaintiff meant to reference the RCCA, but even so the facts alleged do not support that relief. Plaintiff's own Fact 4 states that "AussieBloke25 (supposedly) left after no one was there anymore." That allegation contradicts Plaintiff's later claim that Defendant "purposefully camped" the airport and engaged in "egregious and continuous targeted harassment." At most, Plaintiff pleads a brief incident at the airport, not a continuing deprivation of Plaintiff's ability to use public transit or participate in server life.

II. No Standing
Under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction):
and Rule 2.1 (Standing Application):
Plaintiff has not established standing. Plaintiff has not shown a concrete civil injury caused by Defendant that is actionable under civil law, has not shown that the cause of injury was against the law in a civilly actionable way, and has not shown that the requested remedies are available under relevant law.

Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief is also unsupported by the Complaint. Plaintiff requests $5,000 "from the court due to Government and Police negligence," but the Complaint pleads no facts showing that the Government owed Plaintiff a duty, breached that duty, caused Plaintiff's injury, or are proper parties to this action. Plaintiff also requests $10,000 "due to killing Le9endz_ twice," but does not identify a civil damages provision authorizing that amount.

III. Previously Dismissed As Critically Deficient
Under Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel):
This case arises from the same or substantially similar fact set previously litigated in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58. That case was dismissed as a critically deficient complaint. Plaintiff has now refiled the same underlying dispute with the only change having been the addition of the "Government" as a party to the complaint, of which has decidedly not been enjoined.

The plaintiff negligently left core defects unresolved around unsupported civil causes of action, insufficient factual pleading, and unsupported damages. The plaintiff's agreement to not enjoin the commonwealth means that the plaintiff consequently has filed the same complaint that was dismissed for critical deficiencies in Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 58.

For the above reasons, dismissal with prejudice is warranted under Rule 5.16 (Prejudice Rule):
Plaintiff was already placed on notice of the deficiencies in [2026] DCR 58 and had an opportunity to cure them before refiling. A second dismissal without prejudice would permit repetitive filings over the same deficient claims and impose unnecessary burden on the Defendant and the Court.

IV. On Frivolous Claims
The Defendant further notes that the Court Rules recognize frivolous claims as a proper basis for dismissal, and the Court Rules and Procedures recognize that a legal case with "no serious purpose or value" may constitute a Frivolous Court Case. Plaintiff's decision to refile a materially deficient complaint after [2026] DCR 58 supports dismissal with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

DATED: This 28th day of May 2026

I'm going to deny this. Without exhaustively breaking down the dismissal bit by bit, at least one of Plaintiff's prayers could be reasonably granted, Plaintiff does allege a specific harm caused by Defendant that was against the law with a possibly applicable remedy, the previously dismissed complaint does not fulfill the necessary requirements for Rule 5.9 (see: "already been previously litigated," here the dismissed suit was dismissed for deficient filing and not litigated at all), and there is some reasonable purpose or value for this claim, even if that reasonable purpose ends up being a definitive answer to cases of this nature.

Discover timeline is re-opened at this time.

 

[Le9endz_]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.
AussieBloke25
Defendant

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the re-opening of the Discovery phase, the Plaintiff hereby submits the following formal Discovery Requests to the Defendant, AussieBloke25, and their legal party. The Defendant is required to answer the following interrogatories and produce the requested documents/logs within the timeline established by this Honorable Court.

I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (LOGS & EVIDENCE)

1. Production Request 1: Please provide unedited chat logs, console logs, or screenshots from the Defendant's perspective covering the date of incident, specifically capturing any interactions, global chat, or local chat involving the me(The Plaintiff).
2. Production Request 2: Please provide any timestamped evidence, video clips, or logs in the Defendant's possession regarding the Defendant's presence at the "airport" warp/location.

II. INTERROGATORIES (QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED UNDER OATH)
1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the airport during the times the I was killed, and clarify whether you were waiting for the me to log in or arrive.
2. Interrogatory 2: Confirm or deny if you or other any other players had specifically been conspiring to target me for a bounty or harassment reasons .

DATED: This 29th day of May 2026

 

[asexualdinosaur]

II. INTERROGATORIES (QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED UNDER OATH)
1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the airport during the times the I was killed, and clarify whether you were waiting for the me to log in or arrive.

Objection

Compound question
Plaintiff compounds multiple questions into a single interrogatory which would potentially enable them more than the allotted 5 within the Court Rules and Procedures.

We respectfully ask that if they wish to ask so many questions, they are split up.

2. Interrogatory 2: Confirm or deny if you or other any other players had specifically been conspiring to target me for a bounty or harassment reasons .

Plaintiff speaks only for themselves when they answer "No."

 

[Le9endz_]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

Your Honor,

In response to the Defendant's objections, the Plaintiff hereby submits this Amended First Discovery Request. The Plaintiff has separated the inquiries to comply with court rules regarding compound questions while remaining well under the total interrogatory limit.

I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

1. Production Request 1: Please provide unedited chat logs, console logs, or screenshots from the Defendant's perspective covering the date of the incident, specifically capturing any interactions, global chat, or local chat involving the Plaintiff.
2. Production Request 2: Please provide any timestamped evidence, video clips, or logs in the Defendant's possession regarding the Defendant's presence at the "airport" warp/location on the date of the incident.

II. INTERROGATORIES

1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the “airport” during the times the Plaintiff was killed.
2. Interrogatory 2: Clarify whether you were waiting at the airport for the Plaintiff to log in or arrive.
3. Interrogatory 3: Confirm or deny if you, or any other players to your knowledge, had been conspiring to target the Plaintiff for a bounty or harassment reasons.

DATED: This 30th day of May 2026

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

1. Evidence of the other murder alluded to in Plaintiff's written statement.
2. Evidence defendant had "killed many people"
3. Evidence defendant "Came from the road"

I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (LOGS & EVIDENCE)

1. Production Request 1: Please provide unedited chat logs, console logs, or screenshots from the Defendant's perspective covering the date of incident, specifically capturing any interactions, global chat, or local chat involving the me(The Plaintiff).
2. Production Request 2: Please provide any timestamped evidence, video clips, or logs in the Defendant's possession regarding the Defendant's presence at the "airport" warp/location.

1) We object to providing client chat logs on the grounds that they are not admissible evidence, we do not have access to "Console logs", Defendant holds no screenshots from their perspective.
2) Defendant holds no timestamped evidence, video clips, or admissible logs in their possession in regards to their presence at the "airport" warp/location.


We also request to call @Le9endz_ as a witness.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

II. INTERROGATORIES

1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the “airport” during the times the Plaintiff was killed.

Objection

Ambiguous, Assumes Facts not in evidence.
The times and date in which the plaintiff was killed was not clarified for this court and as such it's unclear "which times" the Plaintiff was killed if at all.

Plaintiffs filing includes no evidence and asserts no facts relevant to dates or times, in-fact the only date that is included in the filing is back-dated before the actual filing was filed.

DATED: This 27 day of February 2026

While we recognize that evidence was seemingly uploaded, the evidence is not available.

Spoiler: Published "evidence"

As such, the Plaintiff could not possibly reliably answer this question, and should be rephrased to be inclusive to dates and times relevant to the question.

 

[Le9endz_]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND OBJECTIONS

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

Your Honor,

I am submitting this response to address the motion and objections recently filed by the Defense. The Defense is misusing court rules to avoid the discovery process and hide the Defendant's actions.

1. The Defendant’s "Motion to Compel" is Groundless
The Defense is demanding immediate proof of the Defendant's other kills and his movement path. This evidence is already supported by the video clip I provided. I warped back to the location immediately after dying. The airport warp was completely empty because the Defendant had just killed everyone in the airport including me he even killed me again after I teleported back to the airport to see if he was still there or not and to resume my daily business, however he killed me again which I had luckily managed to capture on video.
Because regular players do not have access to a global kill feed, I will formally ask the Court to subpoena the official staff server logs during the trial phase. These logs track all PvP events and will prove the murders at the warp. I will submit my personal video and screenshots during the evidence phase, not during discovery. This motion should be denied.

2. Chat Logs are Admissible Evidence
The Defense claims that chat logs are not admissible. This is incorrect. Unedited chat logs from a player's .minecraft folder are standard evidence used in Redmont courts to establish timelines and intent. While the Defendant may not have console logs, he does have local client logs. The Defense should be ordered to search these files for the date of the incident.

3. The Defense Completely Ignored the Interrogatories
The Defense only responded to my requests for files. They completely ignored my Interrogatories. AussieBloke25 must answer under oath why he was camping the airport warp, if he was waiting for players to arrive, and why he repeatedly targeted people there.
Additionally, to establish the legality of his actions, the Defendant must state under oath whether he held a valid, government-issued firearms license at the exact time of the shooting.

4. Response to the Witness Request
I have nothing to hide and agree to be called as a witness. However, to keep the court thread organized and prevent ambush tactics, I request that the Defense be ordered to post their direct examination questions in writing first so I can provide formal responses.

DATED: This 31st day of May 2026

 

[Le9endz_]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S FILING

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff formally moves to amend the date of the incident listed in the original filing to the correct date of May 27, 2026.

The "February" date was a mere grammar and spelling error as muscle memory which accidentally was written onto this law suit. The incident occurred on May 27, 2026, and this lawsuit was submitted on that exact same day.

Because the lawsuit was filed immediately following the incident, the timeline is completely accurate and clear. The Defense party is not prejudiced by this correction because they know exactly when the incident took place. I request the Court to grant this minor amendment so we can proceed with the case.

DATED: This 31st day of May 2026

Objection

Ambiguous, Assumes Facts not in evidence.
The times and date in which the plaintiff was killed was not clarified for this court and as such it's unclear "which times" the Plaintiff was killed if at all.

Plaintiffs filing includes no evidence and asserts no facts relevant to dates or times, in-fact the only date that is included in the filing is back-dated before the actual filing was filed.


While we recognize that evidence was seemingly uploaded, the evidence is not available.

Spoiler: Published "evidence"

View attachment 84171

As such, the Plaintiff could not possibly reliably answer this question, and should be rephrased to be inclusive to dates and times relevant to the question.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

With the question of the date having been resolved, defense respectfully submits the following.

Spoiler: D-001

 

[Le9endz_]

OBJECTION

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT

LE9ENDZ_
Plaintiff

v.

AUSSIEBLOKE25
Defendant


The Plaintiff, Le9endz_, respectfully submits this formal objection to the Defense’s submission of Exhibit D-001. The Plaintiff moves the Court to reject this evidence or order the Defense to produce unedited documentation based on the following grounds:


I. MATERIAL ALTERATION AND INTENTIONAL OBFUSCATION
The screenshot submitted as Exhibit D-001 is heavily cropped, filtered, and stripped of all necessary context.

• Selective Filtering: The image explicitly shows a narrow search filter applied (in: #budget aussiebloke25).
• Concealment of Data: The Defense has purposefully cropped out the surrounding user interface, adjacent Discord channels, and the broader log timeline.
• Spoliation of Context: By presenting a heavily edited snippet, the Defense is actively hiding what occurred directly before and after these specific timestamps in the global server logs.

II. TOTAL LACK OF RELEVANCE TO THE CHARGES
The filtered logs provided by the Defense completely fail to address the core matter of this lawsuit.

• Financial Logs vs. Physical Actions: The exhibit lists financial transactions (selling fish) and a criminal fine (ATM robbery).
• No Alibi Provided: Proving the Defendant was fined or paid at a certain hour does not account for his physical location, movements, or his murders during the timeframe of the killing.
• Diversionary Tactics: This evidence is a textbook distraction designed to steer the Court away from the missing data which I believe has not been properly submitted.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND COURT ORDERS
Due to the suspicious nature of the heavily cropped image, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Honorable Court to issue the following orders:

1. ORDER the Defense to submit the full, uncropped, and unedited screenshot of the Discord logs from which this crop was taken.
2. ORDER that the full screenshot include the surrounding global chat or system notifications for that exact timeframe.
3. ORDER that if the Defense fails or refuses to provide the unedited context, Exhibit D-001 be deemed non-credible and completely struck from the record.

Dated: This 31st Day of May 2026.

With the question of the date having been resolved, defense respectfully submits the following.

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 84185

 

[asexualdinosaur]

OBJECTION

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT

LE9ENDZ_
Plaintiff

v.

AUSSIEBLOKE25
Defendant


The Plaintiff, Le9endz_, respectfully submits this formal objection to the Defense’s submission of Exhibit D-001. The Plaintiff moves the Court to reject this evidence or order the Defense to produce unedited documentation based on the following grounds:


I. MATERIAL ALTERATION AND INTENTIONAL OBFUSCATION
The screenshot submitted as Exhibit D-001 is heavily cropped, filtered, and stripped of all necessary context.

• Selective Filtering: The image explicitly shows a narrow search filter applied (in: #budget aussiebloke25).
• Concealment of Data: The Defense has purposefully cropped out the surrounding user interface, adjacent Discord channels, and the broader log timeline.
• Spoliation of Context: By presenting a heavily edited snippet, the Defense is actively hiding what occurred directly before and after these specific timestamps in the global server logs.

II. TOTAL LACK OF RELEVANCE TO THE CHARGES
The filtered logs provided by the Defense completely fail to address the core matter of this lawsuit.

• Financial Logs vs. Physical Actions: The exhibit lists financial transactions (selling fish) and a criminal fine (ATM robbery).
• No Alibi Provided: Proving the Defendant was fined or paid at a certain hour does not account for his physical location, movements, or his murders during the timeframe of the killing.
• Diversionary Tactics: This evidence is a textbook distraction designed to steer the Court away from the missing data which I believe has not been properly submitted.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND COURT ORDERS
Due to the suspicious nature of the heavily cropped image, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Honorable Court to issue the following orders:

1. ORDER the Defense to submit the full, uncropped, and unedited screenshot of the Discord logs from which this crop was taken.
2. ORDER that the full screenshot include the surrounding global chat or system notifications for that exact timeframe.
3. ORDER that if the Defense fails or refuses to provide the unedited context, Exhibit D-001 be deemed non-credible and completely struck from the record.

Dated: This 31st Day of May 2026.

Brief

I'll keep this brief,

The evidence is from the #budget channel in discord, which is a public record of fines and payments issued and collected by the government. Budget Publication Act - ("(1) A #budget channel will be made under the Government category on Discord.
(a) The #budget channel is to be publicly viewable.")

The supposed 'narrow search filter' is a singular filter visible in the evidence ("in:#budget"), scoped over entries containing the Defendants username "aussiebloke25". The argumentation about 'surrounding user interface, adjacent Discord channels, and the broader log timeline' is highly irrelevant to the evidence being proposed. Likewise, what occurred before or after isn't important in regards to what the evidence is intended to show.

Once a detective solves a case, the player in question is given a 'wanted star' and charged with the crime in question. In the case that it's determined to be self defense, the player is not charged. The evidence in question is relevant insofar as it shows that the defendant was not charged with the crime of murder.


Respectfully, if council requires information within the budget, it's not necessary for a court to order it - they're more than welcome to conduct self-review and publish their own evidence. Spoiler alert to council, it's other people getting paid for selling fish!

 

[Smallfries]

Objection​

Compound question
Plaintiff compounds multiple questions into a single interrogatory which would potentially enable them more than the allotted 5 within the Court Rules and Procedures.

We respectfully ask that if they wish to ask so many questions, they are split up.
.link { color: #000000; font-weight: bold;}

Sustained.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S FILING

Le9endz_
Plaintiff

v.

AussieBloke25
Defendant

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff formally moves to amend the date of the incident listed in the original filing to the correct date of May 27, 2026.

The "February" date was a mere grammar and spelling error as muscle memory which accidentally was written onto this law suit. The incident occurred on May 27, 2026, and this lawsuit was submitted on that exact same day.

Because the lawsuit was filed immediately following the incident, the timeline is completely accurate and clear. The Defense party is not prejudiced by this correction because they know exactly when the incident took place. I request the Court to grant this minor amendment so we can proceed with the case.

DATED: This 31st day of May 2026

Granted.

Objection​

Ambiguous, Assumes Facts not in evidence.
The times and date in which the plaintiff was killed was not clarified for this court and as such it's unclear "which times" the Plaintiff was killed if at all.

Plaintiffs filing includes no evidence and asserts no facts relevant to dates or times, in-fact the only date that is included in the filing is back-dated before the actual filing was filed.

While we recognize that evidence was seemingly uploaded, the evidence is not available.

Overruled, following amendment.

OBJECTION

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT

LE9ENDZ_
Plaintiff

v.

AUSSIEBLOKE25
Defendant


The Plaintiff, Le9endz_, respectfully submits this formal objection to the Defense’s submission of Exhibit D-001. The Plaintiff moves the Court to reject this evidence or order the Defense to produce unedited documentation based on the following grounds:


I. MATERIAL ALTERATION AND INTENTIONAL OBFUSCATION
The screenshot submitted as Exhibit D-001 is heavily cropped, filtered, and stripped of all necessary context.

• Selective Filtering: The image explicitly shows a narrow search filter applied (in: #budget aussiebloke25).
• Concealment of Data: The Defense has purposefully cropped out the surrounding user interface, adjacent Discord channels, and the broader log timeline.
• Spoliation of Context: By presenting a heavily edited snippet, the Defense is actively hiding what occurred directly before and after these specific timestamps in the global server logs.

II. TOTAL LACK OF RELEVANCE TO THE CHARGES
The filtered logs provided by the Defense completely fail to address the core matter of this lawsuit.

• Financial Logs vs. Physical Actions: The exhibit lists financial transactions (selling fish) and a criminal fine (ATM robbery).
• No Alibi Provided: Proving the Defendant was fined or paid at a certain hour does not account for his physical location, movements, or his murders during the timeframe of the killing.
• Diversionary Tactics: This evidence is a textbook distraction designed to steer the Court away from the missing data which I believe has not been properly submitted.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND COURT ORDERS
Due to the suspicious nature of the heavily cropped image, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Honorable Court to issue the following orders:

1. ORDER the Defense to submit the full, uncropped, and unedited screenshot of the Discord logs from which this crop was taken.
2. ORDER that the full screenshot include the surrounding global chat or system notifications for that exact timeframe.
3. ORDER that if the Defense fails or refuses to provide the unedited context, Exhibit D-001 be deemed non-credible and completely struck from the record.

Dated: This 31st Day of May 2026.

@asexualdinosaur, can you explain to the Court how exactly the logs are relevant to the matter at hand? I don't seem to see that in your brief.

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

1. Evidence of the other murder alluded to in Plaintiff's written statement.
2. Evidence defendant had "killed many people"
3. Evidence defendant "Came from the road"

Granted, the Court orders Plaintiff to produce any evidence they have regarding these three items.

1. Production Request 1: Please provide unedited chat logs, console logs, or screenshots from the Defendant's perspective covering the date of the incident, specifically capturing any interactions, global chat, or local chat involving the Plaintiff.
2. Production Request 2: Please provide any timestamped evidence, video clips, or logs in the Defendant's possession regarding the Defendant's presence at the "airport" warp/location on the date of the incident.

Granted, the Court orders Defendant to produce any evidence they have regarding these two items.

 

[Le9endz_]

My game logs for proof AussieBloke25 killed me.
It’s the highlighted text, and if you read towards the bottom you can see he killed me again.

 

[Le9endz_]

As to the request of “killed other people”, I cannot provide that only server staff can in their logs as other people’s deaths do not pop up in chat on this server. Also the airport is right outside of the road and when you warp to it you spawn in the road.

 

[Le9endz_]

I would also like to point out that AussieBloke25 had killed me 5 times.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

@asexualdinosaur, can you explain to the Court how exactly the logs are relevant to the matter at hand? I don't seem to see that in your brief.

Brief

Your honour,

As I state in my brief, the evidence goes to show the defendant was not charged with murder. While it is not the 'end all be all' of the case, it is a showing that the plaintiff's reports at the least did not end in a charge therefor intended to prove the negative is true.

As I also state in my brief, if the clue was investigated and it turned out to be self-defense, this would not result in a charge. To be very clear, charges for murder would show up in #budget if they're processed, we can see an example of crimes processed this was in my very showing, as well as numerous other charges if one were to scroll down budget.

This is a civil trial and as the standard of evidence is balance of probabilities (Judicial Standards Act Part II § 3.1(a) "The litigant with the burden of proof must prove the case:", "In a civil proceeding, on a balance of probabilities;"), this evidence is intended to push the scale down on one side of the equation to discredit the claims of these murders- that I would like to point out the plaintiff has yet to show indication of happening in any of their admissible evidentiary showings.

My game logs for proof AussieBloke25 killed me.
It’s the highlighted text, and if you read towards the bottom you can see he killed me again.

I would also like to point out that AussieBloke25 had killed me 5 times.

Objection

Improper evidence

Plaintiff submits the evidence that is editable and as such we refer to previous precedent over the matter.
(DCR 7 [2024] "An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.")
(DCR 15 [2025] "P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past")
(SCR 20 [2025] "Text logs as a form of evidence are naturally suspect and must be corroborated by independent evidence.")

In addition all of Plaintiff's evidence, inclusive to the dead video link in their filing is devoid of proper naming convention. (Court Rules and Procedures - 4.6 "Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)")

Video Evidence: Watch IMG_3150 | Streamable

Improper evidence
The video link provided in the filing falls under the spirit of the rule here, as the video itself disappeared. Plaintiff should consider youtube for something long-term for the court to analyze should this video exist.
(Court Rules and Procedures - 4.6 "Evidence which are "cdn.discord.com" links are INADMISSIBLE as they tend to disappear after ~2 weeks. We recommend you use YouTube for videos.")

Granted, the Court orders Defendant to produce any evidence they have regarding these two items.

Your honour, we've provided all we believe is admissible in this court above, defendant opted to re-state the request despite this, we request elaboration on whether we've sufficiently complied with the court order in this regard.

1) We object to providing client chat logs on the grounds that they are not admissible evidence, we do not have access to "Console logs", Defendant holds no screenshots from their perspective.
2) Defendant holds no timestamped evidence, video clips, or admissible logs in their possession in regards to their presence at the "airport" warp/location.

1. Interrogatory 1: State the exact reasons and context for your presence at the “airport” during the times the Plaintiff was killed.
2. Interrogatory 2: Clarify whether you were waiting at the airport for the Plaintiff to log in or arrive.

1. "I was buying a gun from a dude to then go to the wild"
2. "I was not waiting for him to log in or arrive"
3. Already answered.

 

[Smallfries]

Brief​

Your honour,

As I state in my brief, the evidence goes to show the defendant was not charged with murder. While it is not the 'end all be all' of the case, it is a showing that the plaintiff's reports at the least did not end in a charge therefor intended to prove the negative is true.

As I also state in my brief, if the clue was investigated and it turned out to be self-defense, this would not result in a charge. To be very clear, charges for murder would show up in #budget if they're processed, we can see an example of crimes processed this was in my very showing, as well as numerous other charges if one were to scroll down budget.

This is a civil trial and as the standard of evidence is balance of probabilities (Judicial Standards Act Part II § 3.1(a) "The litigant with the burden of proof must prove the case:", "In a civil proceeding, on a balance of probabilities;"), this evidence is intended to push the scale down on one side of the equation to discredit the claims of these murders- that I would like to point out the plaintiff has yet to show indication of happening in any of their admissible evidentiary showings.

I see, thank you. With that being said, relevant objection is overruled.

Objection​

Improper evidence

Plaintiff submits the evidence that is editable and as such we refer to previous precedent over the matter.
(DCR 7 [2024] "An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence. If you have collaborating evidence to prove the statements, you can submit it in a motion to reconsider.")
(DCR 15 [2025] "P-001 - P-006 are chat logs that are highly editable. For this reason, evidence like this have been struck in the past")
(SCR 20 [2025] "Text logs as a form of evidence are naturally suspect and must be corroborated by independent evidence.")

In addition all of Plaintiff's evidence, inclusive to the dead video link in their filing is devoid of proper naming convention. (Court Rules and Procedures - 4.6 "Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)")
Improper evidence
The video link provided in the filing falls under the spirit of the rule here, as the video itself disappeared. Plaintiff should consider youtube for something long-term for the court to analyze should this video exist.
(Court Rules and Procedures - 4.6 "Evidence which are "cdn.discord.com" links are INADMISSIBLE as they tend to disappear after ~2 weeks. We recommend you use YouTube for videos.")

Sustained on all parts. Plaintiff may feel free to re-submit the improper evidence with any corroborating evidence you may have. Further, Plaintiff is ordered to properly format their evidence as pointed out by Defendant's counsel.

Your honour, we've provided all we believe is admissible in this court above, defendant opted to re-state the request despite this, we request elaboration on whether we've sufficiently complied with the court order in this regard.

Apologies. As noted above, client-side text logs on their own are inadmissible. If Defendant has no corroborating evidence to those logs, then there is no admissible evidence to procure.

I apologize, this case is some what of a mess. Please feel free to respond here if there is something I've missed, I'm trying to keep it (and the rest of my docket) as smooth as I can.