Lawsuit: Pending Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18

[Superwoops]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Superwoops
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Trentrick_Lamar, in an auction, sold three villagers to Superwoops for the sum of $5,000. Superwoops was not able to collect the villagers before being permanently deported.


I. PARTIES

1. Superwoops (Plaintiff)
2. Trentrick_Lamar (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On December 7th, 2025, the Defendant posted an auction titled "Three Villagers".
2. Following a number of bids, Superwoops won the auction with his bid of $5,000 on December 9th.
3. The Defendant recognised the legitimate winning bid by replying to the $5,000 bid and saying "A winner is you!"
4. The DOC Secretary sent a message in the auction thread and did not raise any issues with the way it was handled.
5. After asking for the delivery of the villagers on December 14th, the Defendant provided rough instructions on how to pick them up by checking the game map.
6. The Defendant was temporarily deported on December 19th, then permanently deported on December 28th. (P-001)
7. The Defendant's deportation made the Plaintiff unable to collect on their contractually agreed upon villagers.
8. The current value of three villagers is $24,000. (P-002 and P-003)​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The auction was a valid contract between both parties. Superwoops fulfilled his end by paying $5,000 to the Defendant. In turn, the Defendant has not fulfilled their contractual obligations. The Plaintiff asks the Court to assist the Defendant in fulfilling his contractual obligations. This is upheld in Lawsuit: Adjourned - GraprielJuice V. Aesyr [2025] DCR 100.
2. The deprivation of the three villagers harmed the Plaintiff's future earning capacity from December 9th to the present day, over two months.​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $24,000 in compensatory damages for the current value of three villagers. In a recent (January 24th) marketplace thread buying villager eggs opened by IamJeb_, Alfie Dug acknowledged villager eggs sell for as much as $10,000. Another citizen, ZxRiptide, offered to sell IamJeb_ an egg for $10,000, then lowering his offer to $8,000, described by him as "8 firm" (relating to his offer not going lower than $8,000). IamJeb_ accepted this offer by replying "fine". Therefore, the value of three villagers is calculated to be $24,000. (See P-002 and P-003)
2. $7,500 in nominal damages for the harm of the Plaintiff's future earning capacity had the Plaintiff come into possession of the three villagers back in December. Additionally, this can also be seen as compensation for harmed earning capacity from the deprivation of $5,000 with nothing in return for over two months, a sum of money that could have been better invested elsewhere.
2. $9,450 in legal fees (30% of case value) payable to Superwoops.​

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

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 15th day of February 2026.

 

[dearev]

defendant perm deported, case in recess pending default.

 

[Superwoops]

View attachment 74504
defendant perm deported, case in recess pending default.

Your honour, I just wanted to ask about the status of this case

 

[Superwoops]

Sorry to disturb again, just want to make sure this case doesn’t become buried

@dearev

 

[dearev]

Sorry to disturb again, just want to make sure this case doesn’t become buried

@dearev

ill begin working on a verdict, my sincere apologies i have had so much going on irl.

 

[Franciscus]

Hello,

I am the new presiding officer on this case.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The Court, in conducting research for the verdict on this case, requires an explanation on legislative history from the Office of Congressional Affairs.

Upon review of legislative history while writing this verdict, the Court found reference to "Unlawful Killing of a Protected Entity", as if it were in the Criminal Code Act. Such a crime is present on the Laws thread and in public archives of the CCA, so the Court indeed sees that such a crime was once present in the Act. Upon review now, however, the crime appears to be missing from the Act, having been removed on or after January 18 and on or before February 25.

The Court, upon looking through legislation, is unable to find a law passed that would have removed this outright, and seeks clarity from the Office in charge of "[m]aking all necessary changes to documents of law" (Legislative Standards Act, Section 6(3)(a)).

1. Does the Office of Congressional Affairs believe that the crime "Unlawful Killing of a Protected Entity" has been removed from the Criminal Code Act by action of law?
2. If so, can you point the Court to this law? If not, can you explain to the Court why this was so changed?

This information is necessary for clarifying legislative history in the verdict of this case, and this Writ is thus issued in line with Part V, Section 2(1) of the Judicial Standards Act. I am summonsing both presiding officers, as well as the Attorney General.

So Ordered,
Judge Multi

Writ of Summons

@Darklander @Talion77 and @Dogeington are required to appear before the District Court in the case of Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18 within the next 72 hours

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.

 

[Dogeington]

Present, your honor

 

[Franciscus]

Present, your honor

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your prompt presence. Are you prepared and authorized to represent the Office of Congressional Affairs on this subject?

 

[Talion77]

Present, your Honour.

 

[Darklander]

Present Your Honor

 

[Franciscus]

Seeing as all are present, the Office of Congressional Affairs shall have 72 hours to respond to provide the Court an explanation on the two questions in the Writ of Mandamus.

For sake of clarity, the two questions are:

1. Does the Office of Congressional Affairs believe that the crime "Unlawful Killing of a Protected Entity" has been removed from the Criminal Code Act by action of law?
2. If so, can you point the Court to this law? If not, can you explain to the Court why this was so changed?

 

[Talion77]

Your Honour —

1. The crime "Unlawful Killing of a Protected Entity", as now codified in Part IV, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act has been removed from the CCA on February 25th, not by action of law, but as a result of a clerical error.
2. The named error occurred as the crime was accidentally overridden during implementation of the Animal Assault Act.

@Franciscus

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour —

1. The crime "Unlawful Killing of a Protected Entity", as now codified in Part IV, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act has been removed from the CCA on February 25th, not by action of law, but as a result of a clerical error.
2. The named error occurred as the crime was accidentally overridden during implementation of the Animal Assault Act.

@Franciscus

Very well. @Talion77 @Darklander and @Dogeington are dismissed from this case and are free to leave.

Court is in recess pending verdict in the next 12 hours.