Lawsuit: Adjourned ThePufferOffical V. brett_miller [2026] DCR 35

[ThePuffer]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ThePufferOffical
(Plaintiff)
V.
brett_miller
(Defendant)

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

On the 7th of April, Defendant had broken into Plaintiff's farming plot, killing Plaintiff numerous times. This, despite a clear sign of No Tresspasing, as well as chat messages making it clear to Plaintiff that he is not welcome. Furthemore, Defendant had used the in game chat to make a threating message at Plaintiff. All this interfered with the Plaintiff's normal day-to-day work, and had caused the Plaintiff immense fear, and disspleasure.

I. Parties:
ThePufferOffical (Plaintiff)
brett_miller (Defendant)

II. Facts:

1. On the 7th of April, at approximately 2:00 PM UTC, Defendant had entered Plaintiff's willow farming plot and had killed Plaintiff.
2. Following this, Plaitniff wrote a message in chat stating that: "As long as he (defendant) enters the plot, he shall be considered trespassing." (See P-001), as well as adding a sign stating that "Entering without permission will be considered trespassing" to the only non-flying entrance to the plot (See P-002).
3. Despite this, Defendant had entered Plaintiff's plot again, killing Plaintiff (see P-003)
4. Finally, after being killed yet again, Defendant posted a threatening message in chat (See P-004).

III. Claims for Relief

1. Tresspasing:
Trespassing, as defined by law, happens when "(a person) enters or remains in a non-public or restricted area against instructions." Plaintiff had instructed defendant that he is not welcome within his private property, both using the in-game chat, as well as with a sign. Despite this, Defendant had entered and refused to leave the plot.

2. Disturbing the peace
Disturbance of the peace, as defined by law, happens when: " (a person) engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress." By entering and killing the defendant in his own private home, the defendant had committed disturbance of the peace.

3. Threats
Threats, as defined by law, are offenses that happen when " (a person) verbally threatens another player with communication to cause fear or force action.", By posting the message of "I'm going to get you" in the in-game chat, Defendant had caused fear and distress to Plaintiff, thus committing the offense of threat.

IV. Prayer for Relief

10,000$ In Punitive damages - this is to discourage such behavior from the defendant again.
10,000$ In Loss of Enjoyment Damages
3,600$ In legal fees.

Evidence:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

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: The 7th of April, 2026

 

[aubunny]

Defendant @brett__miller [now under the username ryoji_ikeda] is permanently deported. The court is now in recess pending the verdict.

 

[aubunny]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order To Show Cause - Providence of Evidence

The Court, in its examination, has found deficiencies in evidence that prevent the publication of a complete verdict, as even though the defendant has been deported, initiating default judgement in line with the ruling provided in Unitymaster vs Lcn , verdicts rendered may still be evaluated, and ruled for either parties (FCR 51 Appeal [2025])
Precedent has revealed that the Courts may then order the presentation of additional facts before continuing to rule, as shown in Commonwealth vs CHUD.Inc. As such, the Court orders the prosecution to answer the following questions to the best of their ability.

• Is there additional evidence relevant to the alleged trespass, threat, or disruption as listed in the complaint?
  If so, the Court allows the submission of additional evidence in the prosecution's brief.
• At what time was the murder, as shown in P-03?

The Court provides 48 hours to submit the brief.

 

[ThePuffer]

Your honor, with permission from the court I would request a 48 hour extension, as the next two days will be a national holiday where I live.

 

[aubunny]

Your honor, with permission from the court I would request a 48 hour extension, as the next two days will be a national holiday where I live.

Granted

 

[ThePuffer]

Your honor,
Regarding the second question, of when the murder took place, the screenshot at P-003 was taken on the 7th of April, 2026, at 17:13 PM local time for the plaintiff (7:13 AM PDT), and the murder had taken place a few moments before.
As for the first question, regarding additional evidence, the Plaintiff would like to submit the following:

P-005, which shows the defendant admitting that "it's not letting him kill this guy", referring to Plaintiff, as well as Plaintiff asking defendant "why are you breaking into my house", with you referring to Defendant, and with the house in question being the property broken into

Spoiler: P-005

[/SPOILER=P005]

As well for P-005, user Vudaa (snoozefest0860 on Discord), who was the DHS officer who investigated the DHS ticket which was opened by Plaintiff, as well as the murders done by Defendant.

 

[aubunny]

Your honor,
Regarding the second question, of when the murder took place, the screenshot at P-003 was taken on the 7th of April, 2026, at 17:13 PM local time for the plaintiff (7:13 AM PDT), and the murder had taken place a few moments before.
As for the first question, regarding additional evidence, the Plaintiff would like to submit the following:

P-005, which shows the defendant admitting that "it's not letting him kill this guy", referring to Plaintiff, as well as Plaintiff asking defendant "why are you breaking into my house", with you referring to Defendant, and with the house in question being the property broken into

Spoiler: P-005

View attachment 80385
[/SPOILER=P005]

As well for P-005, user Vudaa (snoozefest0860 on Discord), who was the DHS officer who investigated the DHS ticket which was opened by Plaintiff, as well as the murders done by Defendant.

Heard. Court is in recess pending verdict.

 

[aubunny]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - ThePufferOffical V. brett_miller [2026] DCR 35

The Prosecution alleges that Defendant "brett_miller" is liable for the civil prosecution for the following crimes: Threats, Disturbing the Peace, and Trespassing. They derive that authority from the Redmont Civil Code (Part II.4.3.b),
(3) Where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under this Code, the plaintiff may:
(b) Pursue civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code

On the Facts

The Prosecution alleges that at 2 PM UTC (6 AM PST, the local time for the Plaintiff, as shown by the evidence presented), the defendant entered his home, and at that time, there was no posted sign prohibiting trespass. And murdered the Defendant. As there was no sign prohibiting trespass, this counts neutrally against the charge of trespassing. This initial murder lays the groundwork for a disturbing the peace charge, however, as shown later in this verdict.


The Prosecution then posted a no-trespassing sign at the building's only entrance. Alongside issuing a verbal warning, with no timestamp attached, the Plaintiff alleges that these actions occurred following the first instance of murder by the defendant, as defined by Fact 1 in their case filing. This sign and verbal instructions meet the definition of "instructions" under the Criminal Code Act, Part VIII, Section 1, as they constitute a clear written directive.

The Defendant then allegedly entered the property, killing the Plaintiff once more. This repeated action lends credence to disturbing the peace and constitutes a violation of the instructions previously set out by the Plaintiff, before finally threatening the Plaintiff.

Court Opinion
In the case of a default judgment, such as when the Defendant is permanently deported, a presiding officer must still evaluate the facts of the case, and may rule for either party, as laid out in FCR 56 Appeal for civil cases. The Judicial Standards Act shows that these evaluations must use a balance of probabilities for their standard of proof.

The facts, as listed, if taken in the order alleged, point to a clear case of trespass onto the Plaintiffs' property. However, the Court has noted one particular point of issue within the facts presented. P-03, the murder which allegedly took place on the property, is cropped to miss the context around it. This causes it to be unclear whether this murder happened after the placement of the trespass sign, or if it took place on the property at all. P-04 does however show a conversation about the sign in relation to the murder, with the Plaintiff and citizens conversing about the nature of trespass, thus proving that the incident was still relevant and discussed, in a balance of probabilities, with the Defense presenting no evidence to the contrary, the Court aligns with the Prosecution, where the defendant did infact enter the property to preform the kill as listed in Fact 3, and P-03.

It is worth noting that in P-04, the Plaintiff states, "but he just flew in, so..." This establishes the fact that the Defendant accessed the building without seeing the proper signs. jsrkiwi v Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 93 states "First, when a book is displayed at designated entrances, a reasonable person would understand that the contents of the book form binding conditions for access to the restricted area." (Emphasis mine) This can be seen as a sign placed at the designated entrance to the farm, thereby constituting a valid sign for the purpose of instruction. With these in mind, the Court finds true that the defendant in its actions meets the definition of Trespass.

Disturbing the peace had occurred through the repeated murder of the Plaintiff, being seen as intentional, with the threats made against the Plaintiff [P-04], which were not made to be playful or accidental, but were made as clear harassment against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the definition of Disturbing the Peace in the Criminal Code Act was satisfied by the Defendant's actions.

Threat can be demonstrated in the Plaintiff's actions with the message "ima get u puffy" by the Defendant, this, combined with the previously demonstrated harassment, meets the definition of "causing fear or forcing action" as defined by the Criminal Code Act.

Damages
The Redmont Civil Code outlines how damages are laid out, with Punitive damages, found in Part 3, Section 3, states "Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous." The Court finds the conduct of the Defendant outrageous, as murder and trespass are beyond the acceptable standards of behavior. With repeated harassment and aggressive action in mind, Punitive Damages shall be granted.

Loss of enjoyment shall be denied, as the Defendant did not prove that their ability was substantially harmed in a way that prevented them from continuing the activities in the same way as before the harm. Beray20 v. Rylint [2021] FCR 118 shows that evidence for losses must be concrete and not inferred.

The Court sees no reason to diminish legal fees.

Conclusion
The Court rules In Favor of the Plaintiff and orders the following:
Defendant brett_miller/ryoji_ikeda is liable for the following:
10,000 in Punitive Damages to Plaintiff ThePufferOffical
3,600 in Legal Fees to pro se Prosecution ThePufferOffical

So ordered.
Junior Magistrate malka