Lawsuit: Pending jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

[jsrkiwi]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

jsrkiwi
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant unlawfully killed me sixteen seconds after I had tasered and cuffed him, then immediately uncuffed him. The Defendant claims self-defence, but the circumstances clearly show intentional lethal action after being restrained and released.

Separately, in a DHS ticket, the Defendant called me “an absolute liar” and told me to “stop lying,” in front of multiple Government personnel. These statements were false and intended to discredit me professionally.

I. PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff is jsrkiwi.
2. The Defendant is Trentrick_Lamar.

II. FACTS
1. On 9th November 2025, the Plaintiff, acting in his capacity as a Police Recruit, attempted to apprehend Urb5n, a mass murderer wanted by police.
2. Urb5n was hiding in room CE102 at the university.
3. On the first attempt at arrest of Urb5n by the Plaintiff, Urb5n exited the room and proceeded to murder the Plaintiff further down the corridor at 19:11:54 UTC.
4. The Plaintiff immediately returned to the university to attempt a second arrest. On this second attempt at arrest of Urb5n by the Plaintiff, Urb5n used the Defendant as a human shield to avoid arrest.
5. At 19:12:31 UTC, the Plaintiff tasered the Defendant, whilst attempting to taser Urb5n.
6. At 19:12:32 UTC, the Plaintiff cuffed the Defendant, whilst attempting to cuff Urb5n.
7. Two seconds later at 19:12:34 UTC, the Plaintiff realised his error and uncuffed the Defendant.
8. The Plaintiff started typing out an apology message, however this was interrupted because sixteen seconds later after being uncuffed, at 19:12:50 UTC, the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff.
9. The Defendant faced no imminent threat from the Plaintiff. The plaintiff was motionless and was not holding a weapon.
10. The Defendant cannot claim self-defence, as there never was a threat of harm against the Defendant, and certainly none once 16 seconds had elapsed from after the Plaintiff had uncuffed him.
11. The Plaintiff’s armour was damaged by the Murder, as evidenced by exhibit 3.
12. The Plaintiff returned to the University to collect the clues from both murders, and in his capacity of a Detective solved the murder case stated in Fact 8 at 19:15:07 UTC, and solved the murder case stated in Fact 3 at 19:15:27 UTC.
13. The Plaintiff then arrested the Defendant at 19:17:15 UTC, read him his rights at 19:17:23 UTC, imprisoned him at 19:17:36 UTC.
14. At 19:19 UTC, the Defendant opened government ticket dhs-25340 with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
15. At 19:20 UTC, the Defendant posted a screenshot to the ticket purporting to show ‘self-defence’.
16. At 19:22 UTC, the Plaintiff responded with a factually accurate witness statement.
17. At 19:22 UTC, the Defendant responded “Absolute liar. I have a witness. | I would like Dolev added to this ticket. | He has your head that I tossed. | @Secretary | Dolev is even there in my screenshot standing right in front of me | Jsr, stop lying. Urbsn was not there. It was Dolev who was there, and he is literally right there in my screenshot.| Urbsn and Dolev do not have the same skin”. (n.b. “|” has been used instead of a new line).
18. These statements were made in the presence of third parties, including (for example) roryyy_, Dolev, Comet, and Culls.
19. Under the No More Defamation Act, false statements constitute Slander.
20. The Defendant provided no evidential basis for alleging that the Plaintiff lied.
21. Under the Legal Damages Act, each act of unlawful defamation permits a damages award.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff when no imminent threat of harm against the Plaintiff existed. Therefore, the Defendant committed the criminal act of Murder.
2. Upon these facts the Defendant is civilly liable for the unlawful killing and the Plaintiff claims compensatory damages under the Legal Damages Act.
3. The Defendant’s written statements constitute slander: “A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization”.
4. The Defendant’s actions fulfil the elements of the tort under the No More Defamation Act, as the accusation (“liar”) was made as a statement of fact, not opinion, and injured the Plaintiff’s professional reputation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. A declarative judgement finding that the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff.
2. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Murder.
3. A declarative judgement that the Defendant slandered the Plaintiff.
4. An order that the Defendant retract the defamatory claim by way of public statement, and apologise to the Plaintiff.
5. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Slander.

V. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
1. Transcript of government ticket dhs-25340, showing the defamatory statements.
2. Logs excerpt from 9th November 2025 between 19:11:00 UTC and 19:18:00 UTC, showing that the Plaintiff did not lie.
3. Screenshot showing damage to the Plaintiff’s armour.

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 9th day of November 2025

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court to order Defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, to preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has initiated a civil action against the Defendant in this Court concerning events that occurred on the DemocracyCraft Minecraft server during the above-stated period.
2. The logs maintained by the Defendant are likely to contain evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s conduct.
3. Immediate preservation of these logs is necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, as such digital records are susceptible to automatic deletion or alteration prior to the opening of discovery.
4. Without the preservation of these records, the Plaintiff’s ability to present relevant evidence and support the claims in this case will be materially impaired.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order requiring Defendant Trentrick_Lamar to:
1. Preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025; and
2. Refrain from deleting, modifying, or altering any such records until further order of this Court.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

This is I love DemocracyCraft!ing stupid lol

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Trentrick_Lamar , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

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.

 

[Muggy21]

This is I love DemocracyCraft!ing stupid lol

You will refrain from speaking out of turn. Future outbursts and the Court will use Contempt powers.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

sorry your highness

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court to order Defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, to preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has initiated a civil action against the Defendant in this Court concerning events that occurred on the DemocracyCraft Minecraft server during the above-stated period.
2. The logs maintained by the Defendant are likely to contain evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s conduct.
3. Immediate preservation of these logs is necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, as such digital records are susceptible to automatic deletion or alteration prior to the opening of discovery.
4. Without the preservation of these records, the Plaintiff’s ability to present relevant evidence and support the claims in this case will be materially impaired.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order requiring Defendant Trentrick_Lamar to:
1. Preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025; and
2. Refrain from deleting, modifying, or altering any such records until further order of this Court.

Granted. Defendant shall preserve logs as described.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

MZLD will be representing the Defendant.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

MZLD will be representing the Defendant. View attachment 66671

You shall have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

 

[Muggy21]

@Rory (@Kaiserin_ , courtesy ping in case DoJ can answer on behalf of DHS).

Interrogatory by the Court: Are DHS tickets inherently classified when initially filed?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your honour,

To ignore any other concerns about privacy and confidentiality - no, DHS tickets are not automatically assigned a classification status when opened.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint in Part.


Prayer #1 is dismissed with prejudice. This Court is not equipped to issue declaratory judgements of summary offenses that occurred outside of its purview. A declaratory judgement of this nature may impart a duty on this Court to affirm actions that have otherwise been adjudicated by the DHS. This Court has a duty to hear appeals on DHS actions, this Court will never make a declaratory judgment in a civil proceeding affirming a criminal action.

So ordered,
Magistrate Mug

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.

Your Honour, the Plaintiff does not object to the request for extension by the Defendant.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.

Answer Due : 11/13/25

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court, in light of the Court’s Order at 04:21 UTC on 10 November 2025, to withdraw certain portions of the Complaint to simplify the case, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Fact 11 from Section II (Facts) of the Complaint.

2. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Prayer 2 from Section IV (Prayer for Relief) of the Complaint.

3. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Exhibit 3 from Section V (Attached Evidence) of the Complaint.

4. These withdrawals are made to streamline the litigation and focus on the remaining claim.

5. No other facts, claims, or prayers for relief are affected by this motion.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT FOURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

With respect to the matter of the Plaintiff’s editing of their motion after submission, it is my understanding that Plaintiffs should generally not do this. To the best of my knowledge, there is a default grace period of 5 minutes built into the forums, and it is common sense that this time could be used for things like spelling/grammar mistakes.

That being said, as I was reading the Plaintiff’s brief, it was edited, and a screenshot of that edit (for posterity's sake) is included below as Exhibit D-ZZ0. This was outside of the narrow window to fix basic mistakes that the forums software affords.

Exhibit D-ZZ0

The Defense requests that the Plaintiff indicate the changes made in the brief since it was originally posted or, in the alternative, that the brief be stricken (amendments to motions are not automatically granted under the rules).

 

[jsrkiwi]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT FOURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

With respect to the matter of the Plaintiff’s editing of their motion after submission, it is my understanding that Plaintiffs should generally not do this. To the best of my knowledge, there is a default grace period of 5 minutes built into the forums, and it is common sense that this time could be used for things like spelling/grammar mistakes.

That being said, as I was reading the Plaintiff’s brief, it was edited, and a screenshot of that edit (for posterity's sake) is included below as Exhibit D-ZZ0. This was outside of the narrow window to fix basic mistakes that the forums software affords.

Exhibit D-ZZ0
View attachment 66695

The Defense requests that the Plaintiff indicate the changes made in the brief since it was originally posted or, in the alternative, that the brief be stricken (amendments to motions are not automatically granted under the rules).

The amendment was to remove a blank line before the title "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT", and to add bold formatting to headings.

 

[Muggy21]

The amendment was to remove a blank line before the title "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT", and to add bold formatting to headings.

The Court reviewed the history, Plaintiff's explanation is substantiated.

Overruled.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court, in light of the Court’s Order at 04:21 UTC on 10 November 2025, to withdraw certain portions of the Complaint to simplify the case, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Fact 11 from Section II (Facts) of the Complaint.

2. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Prayer 2 from Section IV (Prayer for Relief) of the Complaint.

3. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Exhibit 3 from Section V (Attached Evidence) of the Complaint.

4. These withdrawals are made to streamline the litigation and focus on the remaining claim.

5. No other facts, claims, or prayers for relief are affected by this motion.

Granted in part. Exhibit 3 will not be struck.