Lawsuit: Pending Dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 65

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRIC COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dodrio3
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 22nd of August 2025 Darkplays3656 consented to being killed by Dodrio3. Dodrio3 they got reported to the police via /911. Then on the 23rd of August Dodrio3 opened a ticket with the DHS where he spoke to both the DOJ and the DHS to try and fix the issue in which they both failed to help and remove the false charge. Then on the 25th of August Dodrio3 Was arrested by RaiTheGuy and spent 10 minutes in jail with a $150 Fine

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth Of Redmont - Defendant
2. Dodrio3 - Plaintiff
3. Darkplays3656 - False Reporter

II. FACTS
1. On the 22nd of August 2025 Darkplays3656 Consented to being killed by dodrio3 (P-001)
2. On the 23rd of August 2025 Dodrio3 Opens a DHS ticket and spoke to the DHS and the DOJ who failed to provide a remedy (P-002)
3. On the 25th of August Dodrio3 was jailed for 10 minutes and fined $150 (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant was falsely arrested by the DHS after they were giving notice that the killing of darkplays3656 was consented to
2. Section 6(2)(c) of the criminal code states “If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences.”

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $150 in compensatory damages as a reimbursement of the fine
2. $500 in compensatory damages for the time in jail
3. $1000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment in redmont
4. $3000 In punitive damages for the outrageous conduct of the defence
5. The Murder be fully removed from Dodrio3 Record
6. 30% of the cases value in legal fees
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 27th day of August 2025

P-001

P-002

Tickets Dashboard

P-003

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@juniperfig , is required to appear before the district Court in the case of Dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 65

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.

 

[juniperfig]

Commonwealth is present, your honour.

 

[dearev]

Commonwealth is present, your honour.

The commonwealth shall have 48 hours to present an answer to complaint.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Answer to Complaint

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

Dodrio3
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Deny - P-001 does not show this.
2. Affirm
3. Affirm

II. DEFENCES
1. The DHS is and was under no obligation to clear ‘consensual’ murders, this was largely a department policy that has since been rescinded.
2. There is a way in which to consent to murder using the ‘/police consent’ command.
3. The DHS upon implementation of this command decided to stop accepting tickets to clear ‘consentual kills’ as a command was created for this purpose.
4. The crime of Murder outlined in the Criminal Code Act is when a person ‘unlawfully kills another player.’, as it is not lawful to kill someone within the city, the plaintiff had committed murder.
5. The decision to not clear consensual kills was put into effect 7/12/2025 and made by DHS leadership, and publicly acknowledged by then President Kaiserin_ 7/31/2025 both in Government announcements.
6. Conduct of the employees within the DHS and the DOJ tickets were respectful and in no way met the bar of outrageous conduct, and only informed the plaintiff of command.
7. Loss of Enjoyment is not a damage that applies to the DHS or the DoJ’s actions as they only acted in line with the law as written.
8. The plaintiff was more likely damaged by Darkplays3656 for their non-use of the consent command If that’s what they had intended to do.

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 29th day of August 2025

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL 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. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim

The plaintiff does not contest that they had killed the victim (Darkplays3656) and as such they do not have a valid claim to contest the charge against them. They indeed had committed the murder, and the DHS is under no obligation to clear their charge. It’s not within their policy to do so, nor is it entitled to the plaintiff under the law - [Criminal Code Act - Part IV.3]

The arrest itself was not unlawful- and the punishment and fine were appropriately issued.

 

[dodrio3]

Response

Your Honour,

Under the Criminal Code Act – Part IV.3, murder is defined as “unlawfully killing another player.” The plaintiff has presented evidence demonstrating that the killing in question was lawful and therefore does not meet the statutory definition of murder.

The defence incorrectly suggests that any killing constitutes murder. This misrepresents the law and fails to acknowledge the element of unlawfulness explicitly required by the statute.

Furthermore, the defence’s reliance on Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) is misplaced. The plaintiff’s claim is valid precisely because it challenges the classification of the killing as “unlawful.” Until that core issue is resolved, dismissal under Rule 5.5 is inappropriate.

Lastly, the defence’s statement that the arrest and punishment were lawful is premature and circular, as the lawfulness of both depends on whether the act constituted murder in the first place, the very matter before this Court.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The plaintiff has presented evidence demonstrating that the killing in question was lawful and therefore does not meet the statutory definition of murder.

This is flatly false. P-001 doesn’t even include Darkplays3656’s name, nor reference a murder or consent.

P-002 is not accessible to the defence nor presumably the court and should be re-submitted in a viewable format, a motion to strike is being submitted alongside this objection.

P-003 is only evidence they were charged, nothing to do with the lawfulness of a murder.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

P-001 doesn’t pertain to this case, the defence scratches its head to consider how it is relevant to the case at hand.

Motion

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

P-002 is not accessible to the court or the defence and should be re-submitted as images to be viewable.

 

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRIC COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dodrio3
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth Of Redmont - Defendant
2. Dodrio3 - Plaintiff
3. Darkplays3656 - False Reporter

II. FACTS
1. On the 22nd of August 2025 Darkplays3656 Consented to being killed by dodrio3 (P-001)
2. On the 23rd of August 2025 Dodrio3 Opens a DHS ticket and spoke to the DHS and the DOJ who failed to provide a remedy (P-002)
3. On the 25th of August Dodrio3 was jailed for 10 minutes and fined $150 (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant was falsely arrested by the DHS after they were giving notice that the killing of darkplays3656 was consented to
2. Section 6(2)(c) of the criminal code states “If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences.”

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $150 in compensatory damages as a reimbursement of the fine
2. $500 in compensatory damages for the time in jail
3. $1000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment in redmont
4. $3000 In punitive damages for the outrageous conduct of the defence
5. The Murder be fully removed from Dodrio3 Record
6. 30% of the cases value in legal fees
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 27th day of August 2025

P-001


P-002


P-003

The plaintiff wishes to update P-00.1. We have just discovered that the wrong piece of evidence was entered. We apologies for any deaylas and ask that no motion be ruled upon till this has been corrected.

 

[dearev]

The plaintiff wishes to update P-00.1. We have just discovered that the wrong piece of evidence was entered. We apologies for any deaylas and ask that no motion be ruled upon till this has been corrected.

You may ammend P-001, please communicate to the court when the ammendment has been made; you have 24 hours to ammend your filing

 

[dodrio3]

You may ammend P-001, please communicate to the court when the ammendment has been made; you have 24 hours to ammend your filing

The Amendment has been made.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL 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. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim

The plaintiff does not contest that they had killed the victim (Darkplays3656) and as such they do not have a valid claim to contest the charge against them. They indeed had committed the murder, and the DHS is under no obligation to clear their charge. It’s not within their policy to do so, nor is it entitled to the plaintiff under the law - [Criminal Code Act - Part IV.3]

The arrest itself was not unlawful- and the punishment and fine were appropriately issued.

Motion to dismiss is hereby Denied.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY



This is flatly false. P-001 doesn’t even include Darkplays3656’s name, nor reference a murder or consent.

P-002 is not accessible to the defence nor presumably the court and should be re-submitted in a viewable format, a motion to strike is being submitted alongside this objection.

P-003 is only evidence they were charged, nothing to do with the lawfulness of a murder.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

P-001 doesn’t pertain to this case, the defence scratches its head to consider how it is relevant to the case at haOnd.

Motion

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

P-002 is not accessible to the court or the defence and should be re-submitted as images to be viewable.

OBJECTION - PERJURY Overruled
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE Overruled
MOTION TO STRIKE Granted

 

[dearev]

Discovery will now begin lasting 5 days.

 

[dodrio3]

P-002

Additionally the plaintiff request that darkplays3656 be called as a witness.