Case: Pending The Irradiated v. Daniel Spezi (2026) CV 30

[jotoho]

[...]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, this allegation is unsupported, highly prejudicial, and unrelated to the specific incident at issue in this case. The Plaintiffs have not established that the Defendant initiated any other nuclear detonations, and introducing allegations of unrelated conduct serves primarily to prejudice the Court and support their request for punitive damages rather than prove liability for the alleged June 21 incident. The Defense respectfully moves the Court to strike this allegation and any arguments relying upon it.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, this statement asserts as established fact that all properties suffered high levels of radiation and that commercial activity was inhibited on every property. The Plaintiffs have not produced evidence demonstrating that each property listed in the proposed class experienced radiation, nor that each Plaintiff was unable to conduct commercial activity. Because the statement presents unproven factual assertions as established facts, the Defense respectfully moves the Court to strike it.

[...]

First Motion To Strike - Response

Your Honor, the Defendant’s Counsel has clearly stated himself that, to his knowledge, the Defendant detonated five nuclear reactors across the Isles. This was submitted to the court on July 2nd. The Defendant’s Counsel will be called as a witness by the Plaintiffs to further testify to this in his capacity as a Ministry of Urban Development employee who has also been involved with the Ministry of Justice investigations of the incidents. Prior court cases have clearly settled that allegations may not be stricken until after the party making them has had their fair chance to substantiate them with witness testimony.


Second Motion To Strike - Response

Your Honor, we direct the Defendant’s Counsel to read our case filing. Exhibit P-004 shows radiation in excess of 120 rads, a relatively high level of radiation, out on the street, not inside of the complex. Places inside the complex, particularly before any fading of the radiation, experienced higher levels (b002-third-floor was at more than 350 rads, as seen in Exhibit P-003).

With respect to the Defense, their motions hold no basis in fact, and ignore that witness testimony to substantiate claims is still coming up. However, in the interests of cementing the case: I have attached multiple public communications on the day of the detonation and the day after to this response, as additional evidence to refute the Defense’s claims. These messages include public comments attesting to radiation at b003; radiation at b001 (Rory Casperson’s shop); and radiation at spawn, severe enough to kill. The idea that individuals would be dying of radiation at spawn (which indicates severe radiation far beyond the complex), but be unaffected closer to the source of the radiation, is preposterous.

Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Strike #1

By now it has been well established in the Azalean courts' settled jurisprudence that Motions to Strike based on claims of lack of evidence or irrelevance are generally not granted prior to the end of witness cross-examination, because parties have not yet been granted the opportunity to argue their case and present all of their evidence.

Given that the Plaintiff's Counsel has referred to a recording within submitted evidence containing a statement of the Defendant's Counsel that appears to support the allegation, and Plaintiff has indicated their intent to provide further evidence later in this trial in the form of witness testimony, this Motion to Strike is hereby respectfully denied.

Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Strike #2

Once again, it would be premature to strike an initial factual allegation of the Plaintiff, before opportunities for witness examination and opening arguments have been granted. The Defendant will have the opportunity to argue why they might think this alleged fact is not or only partially true later.
As such, this second Motion to Strike is hereby respectfully denied.

The Defendant may reattempt these motions during the closing arguments phase, if they wish. Alternatively, the Court reserves the right to strike these contested factual allegations sua sponte at the end, if the evidence provided is deemed insufficient, then.

---

The Plaintiff has 48 hours beginning now, to present their opening arguments.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Opening Argument

Thank you, Your Honor. My apologies for the slight delay.

This is a straightforward case. The Defendant rented b002-third-floor, then unrented it. The Defendant is the only person who had rented that floor prior to radiation. Following the Defendant renting the area, radiation began leaking and affecting neighboring plots, expanding to cover not just the Plaintiffs here, but reaching into spawn and other areas.

The Defendant's own lawyer, prior to becoming paid counsel for the Defendant, alleged that he had heard of five total nuclear detonations initiated by the Defendant. The Defendant said he wouldn't nuke anyone "anymore" only if he was not sued or charged, while threatening to "MASS NUKE" if he received "a single lawsuit or a fine or a single second of jail..." This does not demonstrate remorse by any measure, despite the large-scale negative consequences of the Defendant's actions.

The b002-third-floor nuke impacted dozens of citizens on their travels through the Isles, as you can see in the Plaintiffs' attached July 12th exhibits refuting the motions to strike. No one else rented b002-third-floor, and the radiation began just after the Defendant's renting of the space. The peak of the radiation was found in that rental space. The evidence points to the Defendant's liability, particularly as it relates to the Radiation Protections Act, which establishes liability on the Property Owner. The Defendant was the Property Owner and the initiator of the radiation, and as such is liable for the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs all faced harsh levels of radiation. It was experienced at b001, it was experienced at b003 (again, the response to the motions to strike contains an exhibit where a citizen explicitly states they died at b003, not even where the primary source of radiation was). A citizen in the fourth attached July 12th exhibit even says they are "dying in radiation on spawn..." and yet the Defense believes that differing radiation numbers is enough to discredit the class as a whole. If the radiation is killing customers at a commercial complex next to spawn, the specific number is irrelevant to the fact that the nuclear detonation had a severe enough impact to kill dozens of blocks outside of the Plaintiffs' locations.

The Plaintiffs need to be properly compensated for the damage to commercial activity and foot traffic in the area, which was understandably weakened by lethal radiation, and for their claims of up to $5,000 per plot/region under the Radiation Protections Act. Additionally, the Defendant needs to face proper punitive damages for his unrepentant actions, including threatening further nukes if proper legal action was taken.

We look forward to further substantiating the Defendant's liability throughout the trial, Your Honor.