Lawsuit: In Session Ethamn v Faldorix [2025] DCR 30

[Ethan]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Rev. Ethamn (representing himself)
Plaintiff

v.

Faldorix
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The plaintiff respectfully submits the following complaint against the defendant:
On April 10th, 2025, Faldorix repeatedly murdered the plaintiff three times. He persisted in attacking the plaintiff after the murder cap was reached. After leaving logging out, Faldorix proceeded to publicly post a photo of the heads he had collected in his murders.

I. PARTIES

1. Ethamn
2. Faldorix

II. FACTS

1. The plaintiff was first murdered (P-001) by the defendant when attempting to leave spawn.
2. This was brought to the attention of the civil authorities (P-002).
3. The defendant murdered the plaintiff two more times, reaching the murder limit (P-003).
4. The defendant continued attempting to murder the plaintiff after having reached the cap (P-004).
5. The defendant proceeded to display his murders publicly (P-005).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The defendant caused the plaintiff to be belittled and made foolish first by repeatedly murdering, attacking, and then mocking the plaintiff by displaying his severed head obstinately and publicly.
2. The defendant has shattered the plaintiff's sense of security in Reveille: he now looks over his shoulder when exploring the city and scans the horizon pensively looking for names which might jump out and cause him harm. The plaintiff must now travel armed and armoured in Reveille; a reminder that the city is unsafe.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

Consequential Damages

1. Humiliation pursuant to §7(1)(a)(I) of the Legal Damages Act protects against "situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish." For the reasons above the plaintiff seeks $5,000 on this ground.
2. The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont pursuant to §7(1)(a)(III) applies when an injured party "loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm." For the reasons above the plaintiff seeks $5,000 on this ground.

Punitive Damages

1. The defendant repeatedly interfered with the plaintiff's reasonable enjoyment of Redmont. The defendant did so openly and obstinately despite the intervention of civil authorities. The defendant took his tortious actions offline and continued them by publicly displaying the plaintiff's severed head, an act tritely outrageous and meeting the definition set out in §5(2)(a) of the Legal Damages Act. The plaintiff seeks $20,000 on this ground.

Legal Fees

1. Legal fees are "used to describe the fees paid to the attorney for his/her time and effort." (§9(1)(a) of the Legal Damages Act). As I am a licensed attorney representing myself I ask that this court enforce the letter of the law and award fees for the opportunity cost of my representation in the amount of $9,000, equal to 30% of the total value of the claim ($30,000).

V. EVIDENCE

The plaintiff does not intend to tender witness in this matter. The plaintiff intends to rely in argument on the authority set down by this court in Monacht v. MikeOxlonger, [2025] DCR 17.

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-004

The plaintiff's head, for reference.

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.

All therebefore I respectfully submit on this 10th day of April in the Year of Our Lord 2025.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@faldorix is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Ethamn v. Faldorix [2025] DCR 30

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.

 

[Ethan]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Your Honor (and may it please the Court),

As the 72-hour period has now well elapsed without answer from the defendant, the plaintiff respectfully moves for a judgment in default.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Your Honor (and may it please the Court),

As the 72-hour period has now well elapsed without answer from the defendant, the plaintiff respectfully moves for a judgment in default.

Motion for Summary Judgement denied. A Public Defender will be called to represent the defendant

 

[Ethan]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Your Honor (and may it please the Court),

It has been 48-hours since your summons have been issued without answer by the defendant's assigned counsel. The defendant has thus failed to respond for 120 hours. On the basis of the plaintiff's 33(9) right to a speedy trial and the judiciary's interest in requiring a prompt response by the public defense service we ask that a judgment in default be made on the basis of the known facts of the case.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Your Honor (and may it please the Court),

It has been 48-hours since your summons have been issued without answer by the defendant's assigned counsel. The defendant has thus failed to respond for 120 hours. On the basis of the plaintiff's 33(9) right to a speedy trial and the judiciary's interest in requiring a prompt response by the public defense service we ask that a judgment in default be made on the basis of the known facts of the case.

I am aware of the right to a speedy trial and this case so far has gone without unnecessary delay. Your right to a speedy trial does not trump the defendants right to representation. The delay we may be experiencing is necessary to assure all rights of all parties are protected.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, I will be representing the Defendant in this case as a Public Defender.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, I will be representing the Defendant in this case as a Public Defender.

You have 72 hours to post an answer to complaint.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

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

Ethamn
Plaintiff

v.

Faldorix
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence DENIES that the Plaintiff was first murdered by the Defendant when attempting to leave spawn.
2. The defence DENIES that this was brought to the attention of the civil authorities.
3. The defence DENIES that the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff two more times, reaching the murder limit.
4. The defence DENIES that the Defendant continued attempting to murder the Plaintiff after having reached the cap.
5. The defence DENIES that the Defendant proceeded to display his murders publicly.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Judicial Standards Act §13.1.a states that the Balance of Probabilities is the standard of proof that is required for all civil cases.
2. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff to be belittled and made foolish on the balance of probabilities.
3. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff's sense of security in Reveille to be shattered on the balance of probabilities.

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 16th day of April 2025

 

[ko531]

We will now be entering Discovery, Discovery will last 72 hours starting now

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant consents to ending Discovery early, would the Plaintiff wish to do so.

 

[Ethan]

My friend opposite: based on the defendant's Answer to Complaint I again tender exhibits P001-4 which evidence the primary claims in this suit. Given the defendant's denials I'm unsure if they have been reviewed.

In a spirit of cooperation and collegiality I am happy to provide any additional evidence under Rule 4.6 which your client believes can better evidence his claims.

Otherwise we do respectfully consent to your request under Rule 4.5 to end discovery early.

 

[ko531]

As both parties agree to end discovery early. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Opening statement

 

[Ethan]

Opening Statement

Your Honor,

Given the simplicity of this case I will not overwhelm the Court with a lengthy and verbose argument.

This District Court has received three notable sources of evidence in this matter; each I will discuss in turn:

1. The clear and consistent testimony of the plaintiff contained in the Case Filing;
2. The series of exhibits marked P-001 through P-004(1-3); and,
3. The unsubstantiated claims of the defendant contained in the Answer to Complaint.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant murdered him. The evidence is clear: "911 Faldorix has murdered you!" stands probative on its own (P-001). In spite of the evidence, the defendant denies this fact. The defendant has not tendered any evidence to support his denial.

The plaintiff stated that the authorities were informed of the murder. The evidence is, again, clear: "Detective PhillinDeBlanc: I'm going to arrest you" (P-002). In spite of this evidence, the defendant denies this fact. The defendant has not tendered any evidence to support his denial.

The plaintiff stated that he was murdered several more times: so many times, in fact, that the programmed-in "murder limit" was reached. This, too, is evidenced clearly (P-003). And without presenting his own evidence, this, too, the defendant denies. It should then come as no surprise that the defendant denies displaying the severed head of the plaintiff and engaging in public mockery (P-004(2)).

This case rests on credibility. Who has been honest, and who has attempted to mislead this Court? The answer is borne out clearly by the evidence tendered — the only evidence tendered. It is incumbent on this learned Court to weigh the evidence on the balance of probabilities. Would you be humiliated if the person who mass-murdered you followed you off-game? Would you lose enjoyment in Redmont if the same happened to you? The only evidence submitted on this point weighs clearly in favour of the plaintiff.

This testimony must be balanced. The consistent credibility of the plaintiff versus the unsubstantiated and misleading denials of the defendant. The thorough and unimpeachable evidence of the plaintiff versus the empty claims tendered by the defendant. I ask that this Court weigh clearly and decisively the evidence before it and rule in favour of the plaintiff.

With this the plaintiff yields for my friend the defense counsel's opening.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The first claim for relief made by the Plaintiff is that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff to be belittled and made foolish through their alleged actions.

2. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case (P-001 through P-004[1-3]) show the Plaintiff feeling belittled or show the Plaintiff feeling like they were made foolish due to the events alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case (P-001 through P-004[1-3]) show anyone thinking of the Plaintiff as lesser or as a fool due to the events alleged by the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff has not called any witnesses for this case who might be able to provide evidence supporting the first claim for relief.

5. The second claim for relief made by the Plaintiff is that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff's sense of security in Reveille to be shattered.

6. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case (P-001 through P-004 (1-3)) support the claim that the Plaintiff's sense of security was shattered.

7. The Plaintiff has not called any witnesses for this case who might be able to provide evidence supporting the second claim for relief.

8. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case support alleging anything other than the fact that the Defendant has committed murders. There is no evidence at all for these murders having been committed against the Plaintiff, besides the fact that the Defendant at one point posted a picture with the Plaintiff's head in it. A person having access to a picture with someone else's head in it is by no means enough evidence to support the claim that a murder has been committed by the first person against the second on the balance of probabilities. More importantly, as this is a civil and not a criminal trial, there is no evidence at all for the alleged effects these alleged murders had on the Plaintiff.

9. Rule 5.5 of this court's rules and procedures states that "A Motion to dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an [sic] claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

10. No evidence at all is clearly insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.

11. As there is no evidence to support either claim for relief (Point 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8), and no possibility for more evidence supporting either claim for relief to be made throughout this case in the form of witness statements (Point 4, 7), the defence moves that both claims for relief be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5 (Point 9, 10), and that with that the case be dismissed.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The first claim for relief made by the Plaintiff is that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff to be belittled and made foolish through their alleged actions.

2. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case (P-001 through P-004[1-3]) show the Plaintiff feeling belittled or show the Plaintiff feeling like they were made foolish due to the events alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case (P-001 through P-004[1-3]) show anyone thinking of the Plaintiff as lesser or as a fool due to the events alleged by the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff has not called any witnesses for this case who might be able to provide evidence supporting the first claim for relief.

5. The second claim for relief made by the Plaintiff is that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff's sense of security in Reveille to be shattered.

6. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case (P-001 through P-004 (1-3)) support the claim that the Plaintiff's sense of security was shattered.

7. The Plaintiff has not called any witnesses for this case who might be able to provide evidence supporting the second claim for relief.

8. None of the pieces of evidence submitted to this case support alleging anything other than the fact that the Defendant has committed murders. There is no evidence at all for these murders having been committed against the Plaintiff, besides the fact that the Defendant at one point posted a picture with the Plaintiff's head in it. A person having access to a picture with someone else's head in it is by no means enough evidence to support the claim that a murder has been committed by the first person against the second on the balance of probabilities. More importantly, as this is a civil and not a criminal trial, there is no evidence at all for the alleged effects these alleged murders had on the Plaintiff.

9. Rule 5.5 of this court's rules and procedures states that "A Motion to dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an [sic] claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

10. No evidence at all is clearly insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.

11. As there is no evidence to support either claim for relief (Point 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8), and no possibility for more evidence supporting either claim for relief to be made throughout this case in the form of witness statements (Point 4, 7), the defence moves that both claims for relief be dismissed in line with Rule 5.5 (Point 9, 10), and that with that the case be dismissed.

Motion to dismiss denied.

As for points 1-7 and 10-11, it is common practice that Claims of relief that are more of an emotional nature be proven by a reasonable persons test or something of this nature, otherwise the burden of proof for these claims would be unreasonably high.

As for point 8, The court finds it extremely safe to assume even though the plaintiff's name does not appear, that it is the plaintiff being killed in the evidence provided. Especially when the plaintiff is also representing themselves.


As the plaintiff has provided their opening statement, the defense has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.