Lawsuit: Pending The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200 [2026] DCR 154

[BulletBark]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Forge
Plaintiff

v.

1. roy405
2. PhatCat2200
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I was advertising my shop, where I sell bulletproof armor. The plaintiff said he wanted to test it out. We met, i put on the armor. Then he started shooting me with a crossbow, which fires bolts. Not bullets. My armor is advertised and sold specifically as bulletproof. It makes no claims regarding resistance to bolts, arrows, explosives or any other projectile type. it just wasn't tested against the right kind of weapon. When the bolt dealt damage, he started telling people my shop was a scam, even though nothing I advertised was false.


I. PARTIES
1. frodo1005 (CEO - The Forge)
.august4496 (Marketing coordinator - The Forge)


2. roy405
PhatCat2200

II. FACTS
1. frodo1005 posted an advertisement about bulletproof armor
2. roy405 said "lets test that", and proceded to use crossbow (Exhibit 1)
3. After the plaintiff ran away beacuse he didn't want to die, he called it to be a scam (Exhibit 2, 3)
4. In a few minutes the ad poped up again and he again said "frodo1005 is scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor"" (Exhibit 4)
5. Later the ad popped up once again, and then another ad posted my PhatCat2200 "frodo1005 is a scammer" (Exhibit 5)
6. After being asked by a player Nooneee0 (potential buyer) (Exhibit 5) "how so?" got an answer from PhatCat2200 "its fake, don't buy it" Which most definetly Interfered with the sales. this happened a little while again (no proof) Which again safe to say, impacted the reputation of the seller and made him seem untrustworthy


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. False accusation (CCA part III section 5) - The defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour, with invalid proof
2. Defamation (Civil CA part V section 1) - roy405 makes a statement in chat saying "don't buy it, its a scam"
3 Libel (Civil CA part V section 2) - PhatCat2200 makes an advertisment calling the plaintiff a scammer after the plaintiff posted another ad promoting the product
4 Slander (Civil CA part V section 3) - The defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour, with flase and
misleading accusations

V. Evidence
Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Exhibit 7

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $7000 in compensatory fees
2. Any further remedy the court deems just and proper.

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: 07.08.2026

 

[Poker]

Writ of Summons

@roy405 and @PhatCat2200 are required to appear before the District Court in the case of The Forge v. roy405 & PhatCat2200

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.

 

[roy405]

im here

 

[Poker]

Defendant PhatCat2200 was sent a mail with summons to this case

 

[Poker]

im here

Please, prepare your answer within 48 hours.

 

[Poker]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Forge
Plaintiff

v.

1. roy405
2. PhatCat2200
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I was advertising my shop, where I sell bulletproof armor. The plaintiff said he wanted to test it out. We met, i put on the armor. Then he started shooting me with a crossbow, which fires bolts. Not bullets. My armor is advertised and sold specifically as bulletproof. It makes no claims regarding resistance to bolts, arrows, explosives or any other projectile type. it just wasn't tested against the right kind of weapon. When the bolt dealt damage, he started telling people my shop was a scam, even though nothing I advertised was false.


I. PARTIES
1. frodo1005 (CEO - The Forge)
.august4496 (Marketing coordinator - The Forge)


2. roy405
PhatCat2200

II. FACTS
1. frodo1005 posted an advertisement about bulletproof armor
2. roy405 said "lets test that", and proceded to use crossbow (Exhibit 1)
3. After the plaintiff ran away beacuse he didn't want to die, he called it to be a scam (Exhibit 2, 3)
4. In a few minutes the ad poped up again and he again said "frodo1005 is scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor"" (Exhibit 4)
5. Later the ad popped up once again, and then another ad posted my PhatCat2200 "frodo1005 is a scammer" (Exhibit 5)
6. After being asked by a player Nooneee0 (potential buyer) (Exhibit 5) "how so?" got an answer from PhatCat2200 "its fake, don't buy it" Which most definetly Interfered with the sales. this happened a little while again (no proof) Which again safe to say, impacted the reputation of the seller and made him seem untrustworthy


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. False accusation (CCA part III section 5) - The defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour, with invalid proof
2. Defamation (Civil CA part V section 1) - roy405 makes a statement in chat saying "don't buy it, its a scam"
3 Libel (Civil CA part V section 2) - PhatCat2200 makes an advertisment calling the plaintiff a scammer after the plaintiff posted another ad promoting the product
4 Slander (Civil CA part V section 3) - The defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour, with flase and
misleading accusations

V. Evidence
Exhibit 1View attachment 94086
Exhibit 2View attachment 94079
Exhibit 3View attachment 94080
Exhibit 4View attachment 94081
Exhibit 5View attachment 94082
Exhibit 6View attachment 94083
Exhibit 7View attachment 94084

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $7000 in compensatory fees
2. Any further remedy the court deems just and proper.

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: 07.08.2026

Counsel, please provide proof of representation within 48 hours.

 

[frodo1005]

I frodo1005 accept BulletBark to represent me in the case of The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200

 

[EmeraldGuuy]

@Poker Your Honor, I am requesting a 24 hour extension to write the answer to complaint because I have to write a separate answer to complaint and I have a few tests I have to study for IRL. I will likely post it before the extension, however I am requesting it just in case I need it. @roy404 and I are the Counsel for the Defendant.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation 1

Spoiler: Proof of Representation 2

 

[Poker]

@Poker Your Honor, I am requesting a 24 hour extension to write the answer to complaint because I have to write a separate answer to complaint and I have a few tests I have to study for IRL. I will likely post it before the extension, however I am requesting it just in case I need it. @roy404 and I are the Counsel for the Defendant.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation 1

View attachment 97549

Spoiler: Proof of Representation 2

View attachment 97550

Granted

New deadline is 02, September, 2026, 12:46 UTC.

 

[EmeraldGuuy]

Answer to Complaint

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

The Forge
Plaintiff

v.

roy405
Co-Defendant

I. Answer to Complaint

1. The Defense DENIES that frodo1005 posted an advertisement about bulletproof armor as there is no evidence to prove such.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that roy405 said "lets test that", but DENIES that Co-Defendant Roy405 proceeded to use a crossbow.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that the plaintiff ran away because he didn't want to die, but DENIES that the plaintiff called it a scam. The Defense would like to bring up that the Plaintiff used the word “he”, after referring to the Plaintiff as he in the previous clause of that sentence. This could only mean that “he” was used as an antecedent, referring to the Plaintiff.
4. The Defense DENIES that an advertisement was put out by roy405 stating "frodo1005 is scamming yall, dont buy his 'bulletproof armor'", as Co-Defendant roy405 never put out an ad saying such in any of the evidence pieces.
5. Fact 5 is not applicable to Co-Defendant roy405.
6. Fact 6 is not applicable to Co-Defendant roy405.

II. DEFENCES

I. False Accusation

1. Part V Section III of the Criminal Code Act states the following requirements for a False Accusation Charge:

(a) falsely accuses another person of a crime, and
(b) could reasonably infer that the accused was innocent.

2. The Defendant did accuse the Plaintiff of scamming (P-002, P-003), however the accused could not reasonably be considered innocent as the armor was tested by the Defendant and several others, and the plaintiff was damaged because of bullets. Roy405 was a witness to such.
3. The Plaintiff has failed to define “bulletproof”, which the merriam-webster definition of is clear;

"impenetrable to bullets”.

Which would require the definition of “bullets”, which is clearly defined by merriam-webster as

“a round or elongated missile (as of lead) to be fired from a firearm”.

This could mean that bulletproof, in long, means

"impenetrable to round or elongated missiles to be fired by a firearm (otherwise known as bullets).”

Meaning that if the Plaintiff’s claim that Co-Defendant roy405 did in fact shoot bolts as a test, then it seems to qualify under this definition. In the Plaintiff’s written statement, he says:

“it just wasn't tested against the right kind of weapon.”

Which by using the definition, means that the test was legitimate, as the Plaintiff is claiming it was a weapon, which falls into the definition as a firearm.

II. Defamation

1. For the charge of defamation to apply, the following requirements must be met in accordance with Part V Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act:

(a) makes a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation;
(b) the statement is made to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(c) the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the statement is substantially true; or
(e) the statement is a genuinely held opinion based on disclosed facts;
(f) the statement was made in the course of legitimate political communication;
(g) the plaintiff consented to the publication.

2. While, again, the Plaintiff did in fact make claims about the “bulletproof armor”, however it did not cause any reputational harm as there has been no evidence provided to prove such.

III. Libel

1. In accordance with Part V Section II of the Redmont Civil Code Act, the following definition applies for libel:

(a) commits defamation as defined in Section 1 of this Part; and
(b) the defamatory statement is expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication method embodied in physical form; and
(c) the statement is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in their business, profession or organisation.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the defences set out in Section 1 of this Part shall apply

2. This fails on sub-sections (a), (b), and (c), because the statements were not defamatory, as it did not harm their business (no proof has been provided).

IV. Slander

1. The Requirements for this in Part V Section III of the RCCA goes as follows:

(a) commits defamation as defined in Section 1 of this Part; and
(b) the defamatory statement is made verbally, through Discord messages, or in-game messages; and
(c) the statement defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) the defences set out in Section 1 of this Part shall apply

2. Again, the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of reputational, business, and overall loss.
3. In such, the statements were not defamatory and so does not qualify as Slander.

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: 31st Day of August, 2026.

Signed by,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Co-Defendant​

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The Complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to establish the elements of the causes of action asserted, fails to establish a legally cognizable loss, and seeks remedies which are unavailable on the facts pleaded.

I. Rule 5.5: Insufficient evidence for claims 1, 2 and 4.​

1. Claim 1 alleges that “the defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour”. Claim 2 apparently arises from the alleged statement “don't buy it, its a scam”, whilst Claim 4 arises from the allegation that Defendant “falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour”.

2. The quotation relied upon in Claim 2 does not appear in the Plaintiff's exhibits or alleged facts. The Defendant therefore proceeds, charitably, on the assumption that the Plaintiff intended to rely upon the statement “frodo1005 is scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor"”.

3. The Complaint fails to plead any factual basis establishing that the Defendant's statement was false. In particular, the Plaintiff nowhere alleges that the armour advertised by frodo1005 was in fact bulletproof, nor provides evidence establishing that.

4. This omission is material. If the Plaintiff's armour was not bulletproof, then the Defendant's alleged statement that it was being deceptively sold as “bulletproof armour” cannot constitute a false factual accusation.

5. The Complaint therefore fails to plead sufficient facts from which the Court could find the requisite falsity underlying Claims 1, 2 and 4.

6. Therefore, we submit to Your Honour that Claims 1, 2 and 4 ought to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5.

II. Rule 5.5: Insufficient evidence to support compensatory damages​

1. Part III, §2.2.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act states that “Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.”

2. The Plaintiff has pleaded no fact establishing any pecuniary loss whatsoever.

3. The closest allegation is Fact 6, in which the Plaintiff asserts that a potential buyer, Nooneee0, was allegedly deterred from purchasing the armour after PhatCat2200 stated that it was fake. Notably, this does not refer to the Defendant roy405.

4. The Complaint provides no evidence that Nooneee0 actually intended to purchase the armour; no evidence of the value of any proposed transaction; and no evidence that the Plaintiff suffered any actual financial loss as a consequence.

5. The Plaintiff's assertion that the statement “most definetly Interfered with the sales” is therefore speculative. It does not constitute proof of a pecuniary loss.

6. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to support an award of compensatory damages under Part III, §2.2.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

7. Therefore, Your Honour ought to dismiss the first prayer for relief.

III. Rule 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction​

1. Under Rule 2.1, “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.”

2. The Plaintiff has not identified any legally available remedy which can be granted on the facts pleaded.

3. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, but has pleaded no facts establishing pecuniary loss sufficient to support such an award.

4. Nor has the Plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to establish another category of damage.

5. Accordingly, the Plaintiff lacks standing and this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.12.

IV. Commentary re Frivolousness​

1. The Plaintiff has lodged a case in which the allegations, even if accepted as pleaded, provide no reasonable route to the relief requested. The action therefore has no serious purpose or value within the meaning of Part III, §4 of the Criminal Code Act.

2. Furthermore, the purported basis for claiming a potential failed sale (Fact 6) relates solely to the Plaintiff's claims against co-defendant PhatCat2200, with no pecuniary loss alleged as arising from roy405's actions.

3. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court find the Complaint to constitute a Frivolous Court Case and dismiss the action accordingly.

V. Dismissal with Prejudice​

1. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that dismissal be entered with prejudice.

2. The deficiencies identified above are not merely defects in wording. The Complaint fails to identify an actual injury and fails to plead facts establishing any pecuniary loss.

3. In particular, Claims 2 and 4 depend upon an alleged falsehood concerning the nature of the "bulletproof armour", yet the Complaint itself contains no factual basis to assert this.

4. Likewise, the alleged loss of a prospective sale (Fact 6) is unsupported by any pleaded fact establishing that a sale would probably have occurred or that the Plaintiff suffered a quantifiable financial loss. In addition, this alleged loss of a prospective sale only mentioned co-defendant PhatCat2200, and not roy405.

5. The Defendant therefore respectfully submits that amendment would not cure the fundamental absence of a legally cognizable claim and that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

 

[Poker]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The Complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to establish the elements of the causes of action asserted, fails to establish a legally cognizable loss, and seeks remedies which are unavailable on the facts pleaded.

I. Rule 5.5: Insufficient evidence for claims 1, 2 and 4.​

1. Claim 1 alleges that “the defendant falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour”. Claim 2 apparently arises from the alleged statement “don't buy it, its a scam”, whilst Claim 4 arises from the allegation that Defendant “falsly accuses the plaintiff of selling fake bulletproof armour”.

2. The quotation relied upon in Claim 2 does not appear in the Plaintiff's exhibits or alleged facts. The Defendant therefore proceeds, charitably, on the assumption that the Plaintiff intended to rely upon the statement “frodo1005 is scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor"”.

3. The Complaint fails to plead any factual basis establishing that the Defendant's statement was false. In particular, the Plaintiff nowhere alleges that the armour advertised by frodo1005 was in fact bulletproof, nor provides evidence establishing that.

4. This omission is material. If the Plaintiff's armour was not bulletproof, then the Defendant's alleged statement that it was being deceptively sold as “bulletproof armour” cannot constitute a false factual accusation.

5. The Complaint therefore fails to plead sufficient facts from which the Court could find the requisite falsity underlying Claims 1, 2 and 4.

6. Therefore, we submit to Your Honour that Claims 1, 2 and 4 ought to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5.

II. Rule 5.5: Insufficient evidence to support compensatory damages​

1. Part III, §2.2.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act states that “Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.”

2. The Plaintiff has pleaded no fact establishing any pecuniary loss whatsoever.

3. The closest allegation is Fact 6, in which the Plaintiff asserts that a potential buyer, Nooneee0, was allegedly deterred from purchasing the armour after PhatCat2200 stated that it was fake. Notably, this does not refer to the Defendant roy405.

4. The Complaint provides no evidence that Nooneee0 actually intended to purchase the armour; no evidence of the value of any proposed transaction; and no evidence that the Plaintiff suffered any actual financial loss as a consequence.

5. The Plaintiff's assertion that the statement “most definetly Interfered with the sales” is therefore speculative. It does not constitute proof of a pecuniary loss.

6. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to support an award of compensatory damages under Part III, §2.2.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

7. Therefore, Your Honour ought to dismiss the first prayer for relief.

III. Rule 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction​

1. Under Rule 2.1, “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.”

2. The Plaintiff has not identified any legally available remedy which can be granted on the facts pleaded.

3. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, but has pleaded no facts establishing pecuniary loss sufficient to support such an award.

4. Nor has the Plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to establish another category of damage.

5. Accordingly, the Plaintiff lacks standing and this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.12.

IV. Commentary re Frivolousness​

1. The Plaintiff has lodged a case in which the allegations, even if accepted as pleaded, provide no reasonable route to the relief requested. The action therefore has no serious purpose or value within the meaning of Part III, §4 of the Criminal Code Act.

2. Furthermore, the purported basis for claiming a potential failed sale (Fact 6) relates solely to the Plaintiff's claims against co-defendant PhatCat2200, with no pecuniary loss alleged as arising from roy405's actions.

3. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court find the Complaint to constitute a Frivolous Court Case and dismiss the action accordingly.

V. Dismissal with Prejudice​

1. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that dismissal be entered with prejudice.

2. The deficiencies identified above are not merely defects in wording. The Complaint fails to identify an actual injury and fails to plead facts establishing any pecuniary loss.

3. In particular, Claims 2 and 4 depend upon an alleged falsehood concerning the nature of the "bulletproof armour", yet the Complaint itself contains no factual basis to assert this.

4. Likewise, the alleged loss of a prospective sale (Fact 6) is unsupported by any pleaded fact establishing that a sale would probably have occurred or that the Plaintiff suffered a quantifiable financial loss. In addition, this alleged loss of a prospective sale only mentioned co-defendant PhatCat2200, and not roy405.

5. The Defendant therefore respectfully submits that amendment would not cure the fundamental absence of a legally cognizable claim and that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

@BulletBark, you have 48 hours to respond to this motion.

 

[frodo1005]

I frodo1005 accept Vanguard to represent me in the case of The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200

 

[Y8l]

I frodo1005 accept Vanguard to represent me in the case of The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200

Your Honor @Poker , due to unforeseen circumstances, Bullet Bark has been forced to put a break on his Minecraft journeys as he is dealing with Irl issues
I have been selected to take BulletBarks place, if it pleases you.

 

[Poker]

Your Honor @Poker , due to unforeseen circumstances, Bullet Bark has been forced to put a break on his Minecraft journeys as he is dealing with Irl issues
I have been selected to take BulletBarks place, if it pleases you.

Thank you for letting me know. Please, respond to the aforementioned motion within 48 hours.

Previous deadline is voided.

 

[Y8l]

I. The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads Falsity​

The Defendant's motion inverts the pleading standard — at this stage, pleaded facts are taken as true, and the question is whether a claim is stated, not whether it has alr
eady been proven.
The Complaint pleads that the armor was advertised specifically as "bulletproof," with no claim of resistance to bolts. Taken as true, this supports an inference that calling it "fake" was false or made without reasonable basis, since it was never tested against what it was actually advertised to resist.

Whether the armor performed as advertised is a factual dispute for trial, not a pleading defect. The Defendant's argument that a bolt qualifies as a "bullet" is a semantic dispute for the trier of fact, not grounds for dismissal.

II. Damages Deficiency Does Not Defeat the Claims​

The Plaintiff does not press Fact 6 as a damages basis against roy405 specifically.
However, Part III, §4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides for Nominal Damages — "a trivial sum... given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established," available up to $7,500 with no defences to reduce it. Even if the $7,000 compensatory figure is unsupported, the underlying claims can proceed on this basis, consistent with the Complaint's request for "any further remedy the court deems just and proper."
The proper remedy for insufficient damages proof is to require it at trial, not to dismiss the claims outright.

III. The Standing Argument Is Mislabeled​

Section III is captioned "Lack of Personal Jurisdiction" but argues damages sufficiency — a different concept entirely. The Complaint pleads an injury, an unlawful cause, and an available remedy (including nominal damages under Part III, §4), satisfying Rule 2.1.

IV. The Complaint Is Not Frivolous​

The Defendant's own Answer affirms the core facts — the crossbow test, the "scammer" statements. A case resting on largely admitted facts cannot fairly be called frivolous, even if the damages theory has weaknesses.

PRAYER​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honour Overrule the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice:

In its entirety; or, in the alternative,
As to the underlying claims, with damages limited to nominal damages under Part III, §4 RCCA; or, in the further alternative,
If Sustained in any part, that dismissal be without prejudice, with leave to amend.

 

[EmeraldGuuy]

I. The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads Falsity​

The Defendant's motion inverts the pleading standard — at this stage, pleaded facts are taken as true, and the question is whether a claim is stated, not whether it has alr
eady been proven.
The Complaint pleads that the armor was advertised specifically as "bulletproof," with no claim of resistance to bolts. Taken as true, this supports an inference that calling it "fake" was false or made without reasonable basis, since it was never tested against what it was actually advertised to resist.

Whether the armor performed as advertised is a factual dispute for trial, not a pleading defect. The Defendant's argument that a bolt qualifies as a "bullet" is a semantic dispute for the trier of fact, not grounds for dismissal.

II. Damages Deficiency Does Not Defeat the Claims​

The Plaintiff does not press Fact 6 as a damages basis against roy405 specifically.
However, Part III, §4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides for Nominal Damages — "a trivial sum... given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established," available up to $7,500 with no defences to reduce it. Even if the $7,000 compensatory figure is unsupported, the underlying claims can proceed on this basis, consistent with the Complaint's request for "any further remedy the court deems just and proper."
The proper remedy for insufficient damages proof is to require it at trial, not to dismiss the claims outright.

III. The Standing Argument Is Mislabeled​

Section III is captioned "Lack of Personal Jurisdiction" but argues damages sufficiency — a different concept entirely. The Complaint pleads an injury, an unlawful cause, and an available remedy (including nominal damages under Part III, §4), satisfying Rule 2.1.

IV. The Complaint Is Not Frivolous​

The Defendant's own Answer affirms the core facts — the crossbow test, the "scammer" statements. A case resting on largely admitted facts cannot fairly be called frivolous, even if the damages theory has weaknesses.

PRAYER​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honour Overrule the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice:

In its entirety; or, in the alternative,
As to the underlying claims, with damages limited to nominal damages under Part III, §4 RCCA; or, in the further alternative,
If Sustained in any part, that dismissal be without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

@Y8I has failed to provide proof of representation. This breaches the rules in Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court. I apologize for this being so short and informal as I am having to type this at school.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Co-Defendant
​

 

[EmeraldGuuy]

I. The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads Falsity​

The Defendant's motion inverts the pleading standard — at this stage, pleaded facts are taken as true, and the question is whether a claim is stated, not whether it has alr
eady been proven.
The Complaint pleads that the armor was advertised specifically as "bulletproof," with no claim of resistance to bolts. Taken as true, this supports an inference that calling it "fake" was false or made without reasonable basis, since it was never tested against what it was actually advertised to resist.

Whether the armor performed as advertised is a factual dispute for trial, not a pleading defect. The Defendant's argument that a bolt qualifies as a "bullet" is a semantic dispute for the trier of fact, not grounds for dismissal.

II. Damages Deficiency Does Not Defeat the Claims​

The Plaintiff does not press Fact 6 as a damages basis against roy405 specifically.
However, Part III, §4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act provides for Nominal Damages — "a trivial sum... given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established," available up to $7,500 with no defences to reduce it. Even if the $7,000 compensatory figure is unsupported, the underlying claims can proceed on this basis, consistent with the Complaint's request for "any further remedy the court deems just and proper."
The proper remedy for insufficient damages proof is to require it at trial, not to dismiss the claims outright.

III. The Standing Argument Is Mislabeled​

Section III is captioned "Lack of Personal Jurisdiction" but argues damages sufficiency — a different concept entirely. The Complaint pleads an injury, an unlawful cause, and an available remedy (including nominal damages under Part III, §4), satisfying Rule 2.1.

IV. The Complaint Is Not Frivolous​

The Defendant's own Answer affirms the core facts — the crossbow test, the "scammer" statements. A case resting on largely admitted facts cannot fairly be called frivolous, even if the damages theory has weaknesses.

PRAYER​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honour Overrule the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice:

In its entirety; or, in the alternative,
As to the underlying claims, with damages limited to nominal damages under Part III, §4 RCCA; or, in the further alternative,
If Sustained in any part, that dismissal be without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff's Counsel has failed to hyperlink the Criminal Code Act the first time that it was mentioned. This breaks Court Rules and Procedures 1.10.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Co-Defendant
​

 

[Poker]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Ruling on Motion to Dismiss

The motion is DENIED

1) On Claim 1,2 and 4

This Court finds that it's way too premature to rule on favor of this motion. Plaintiff have set the initial evidences on this case, can further provide more proof during discovery and argue during the trial.

2) On Compensatory Damages

Again, this is way too premature. While analyzing the facts, the court see a standing on this claim, and the Plaintiff has the burden to prove it. The argument that the fact does not refer to the Defendant is noted.

3) On the Case

According to the RCCA, the remedy for defamation, slander and libel is an order for public retraction.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause

Within 48 hours, Plaintiff is ordered to
A) Explain how the bulletproof armor works.
B) Explain why the accusations made by the Defendant aren't true
C) Explain his legal basis on compensatory damages.
D) Explain his calculus on compensatory damages.

@Y8l

 

[Poker]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

@Y8I has failed to provide proof of representation. This breaches the rules in Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court. I apologize for this being so short and informal as I am having to type this at school.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Co-Defendant
​

Overruled

Plaintiff provided proof of representation on post #13

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff's Counsel has failed to hyperlink the Criminal Code Act the first time that it was mentioned. This breaks Court Rules and Procedures 1.10.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Co-Defendant
​

SUSTAINED

Plaintiff may make necessary changes on the post within 48 hours.