Lawsuit: Pending lnvlsbie v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 115

L

lnvlsbie

Citizen
lnvlsbie
lnvlsbie
Attorney
Joined
May 24, 2026
Messages
28
Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lnvlsbie (Plaintiff)

v.

Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
“An acquaintance and I were outside spawn trying to converse at 23:15PM GMT+2when the player by the name of LavBebik shot at us multiple times with a fire arm and each time I had shot back in self defense to defend myself and said acquaintance. The following day I had been charged with murder of said shooter, imprisoned for 15mins and fined 350$ and I had opened a ticket to appeal said charge. I had sent the 2clips containing the whole situation to the DHS and offered a settlement. They had told me threateningly that I had been claiming self defense as I had shot first and killed said shooter once even though I had provided sufficient evidence showing that I had been protecting said acquaintance. I had then asked a different police officer about it outside the ticket after I closed it, and they said "This is a near perfect example of self defense".”



I. PARTIES

1. lnvlsbie (plaintiff), barrister working for Singeheart,Addams and Associates
2. Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. I had been chatting with the said acquaintance.
2. The shooter named LavBebik had started shooting at my acquaintance.
3. I had defended myself and the acquaintance by shooting and killing LavBebik in self-defense.
4. LavBebik returned and shot at us again.
5. This continued well over 5 times and lasted approximately 2 minutes before we got away.
6. I had shown the evidence I had clipped to the DHS in the ticket unedited. Who had then threatened me saying i was claiming false self-defense and it can be punished attempting to scare me off to avoid a lawsuit.
7. I had clearly stated in the ticket that I wanted to settle out of court to make it easier on both sides to which they refused. The officer who claimed the ticket was not even trying to help and merely avoided conflict while attempting to gaslight me into not suing.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant has caused me irreparable damage to my career reputation as a lawyer due to the false arrest in question.
2. The defendant has fined me 350$ based on a false arrest.
3. The defendant has sentenced me to prison for 15 minutes based on a false arrest.
4. The defendant has caused my integrity as a barrister / lawyer to be questioned.
5. The defendant has caused me emotional distress.
6. The defendant has caused me immense damage to my reputation as a person that might negatively affect my quality of life on the server.
7. The defendant has committed police misconduct and has terribly harmed my impression of the server thus making me lose reason to play and burning out, further harming my experience on the server.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensation of 15.000$ for the damage caused to my career reputation.
2. Compensation of 50$ per minute sentenced in jail.
3. Compensation of 350$ for the charge
4. Removing the false charge off my police record.
5. Compensation of 12.500$ for the damage caused to my integrity as a lawyer / barrister.
6. Compensation of 15.000$ for the emotional distress the defendant has caused me to suffer during the 3-day period.
7. Compensation of 20.000$ for the damage to my reputation as a person that might negatively affect my quality of life on the server. 8. Compensation of 25.000$ for the damage caused to my experience of the server causing me to near lose interest in the server itself.
9. Compensation of 20% of the cases value in legal fees.

Total of compensation totals up to 100.320$

EVIDENCE

P-001

P-002

P-003
Screenshot 2026-06-16 210002.png


P-004
Screenshot 2026-06-16 210247.png

P-005
Is the pdf named #dhs-33109.pdf, the thread does not allow me to insert it.

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 19th day of June 2026.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - EVIDENCE

The court is inclined to dismiss the case due to the unavailability of the medal.tv clips.

Evidence is required to be permanently available per the Court Rules & Procedures, Rule 4.6.

Is the Plaintiff able to produce the clips in an admissible way (such as YouTube)?

 
Dartanboy said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - EVIDENCE

The court is inclined to dismiss the case due to the unavailability of the medal.tv clips.

Evidence is required to be permanently available per the Court Rules & Procedures, Rule 4.6.

Is the Plaintiff able to produce the clips in an admissible way (such as YouTube)?

Click to expand...
Yes your honor,I will show the evidence in another way. May I request 48 hours to amend it?
 
Good afternoon your honor. SteelRain for the plaintiff. The above evidence has been amended to a proper format per your instruction. Ready to proceed.
 

Writ of Summons



Attorney General @AmityBlamity (or another individual legally qualified to represent the Commonwealth) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of lnvlsbie v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 115.

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.

 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
HEARSAY

Your Honour,
based on persuasive precedent in [2026] DCR 76, allowing the use of the hearsay objection on non-witness related matters, we ask that the Court strikes P-003.

It shows an unsworn, out-of-court testimony that Plaintiff is trying to use as evidence. These may be unreliable and therefore the Court should not use them as sources of reliable information.

 
Johnes said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
HEARSAY

Your Honour,
based on persuasive precedent in [2026] DCR 76, allowing the use of the hearsay objection on non-witness related matters, we ask that the Court strikes P-003.

It shows an unsworn, out-of-court testimony that Plaintiff is trying to use as evidence. These may be unreliable and therefore the Court should not use them as sources of reliable information.

Click to expand...
Your Honour, may we edit this to also include "Improper Evidence"?
 

Answer to Complaint


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

lnvlsbie
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRM, that Plaintiff had been chatting with the said acquaintance.
2. NO CONTEST, that the shooter named LavBebik had started shooting at Plaintiff’s acquaintance.
3. AFFIRM, that Plaintiff had defended himself and the acquaintance by shooting and killing LavBebik in self-defense.
4. AFFIRM, that LavBebik returned and shot at us again.
5. NO CONTEST, that this continued well over 5 times and lasted approximately 2 minutes before we got away.
6. AFFIRM, that I had shown the evidence I had clipped to the DHS in the ticket unedited. DENY, that [the DHS] had then threatened me saying I was claiming false self-defense, AFFIRM, that it can be punished, DENY, that [it was] attempting to scare me off to avoid a lawsuit.
7. AFFIRM, that Plaintiff had clearly stated in the ticket that he wanted to settle out of court to make it easier on both sides, to which they refused. DENY, that the officer who claimed the ticket was not even trying to help and merely avoided conflict while attempting to gaslight him into not suing.

II. DEFENCES​

1. No Self-Defense On Side Of Plaintiff Occurred​

As pointed out in the DHS ticket, Plaintiff’s conduct did not fulfill the definition of self-defense under Part I § 6(10)(a) of the Criminal Code Act.

Self-Defense is defined as follows: (Id.)
(10) Self Defence
(a) A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied.
Click to expand...

The wording of the statute is necessary to analyze here; “against the individual” (emphasis mine) implies that the action is done against the victim themselves. This precludes any self-defense of others, as the wording of the statute does not include “against an individual.”

Therefore Plaintiff’s claim for self-defense falls apart when scrutinized in the lens of the CCA.

2. Plaintiff’s Claims for “reputational damage”/”damage to integrity”/etc. Are Bogus​

Plaintiff claims considerable damages (none of which are properly classified under the Redmont Civil Code Act) arising from his arrest for the alleged illegal arrest.

As we have argued above, the arrest was not false, as the claim for self-defense was not fulfilled. Even if we consider everything in the most favorable light to Plaintiff; finding that the arrest was illegal, we find that the alleged damages have no legal ground to stand on.

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support that his reputation was damaged in any way, whatsoever. Let’s look at it more simply. Being arrested is a very common occurrence, and no one bats an eye at one having been arrested. The same applies for the claim of damage to integrity and reputation.

For the damages of “emotional distress” and what is presumably loss of enjoyment, these are nullified by two facts:
A. Being arrested and jailed does not cause significant disruption to gameplay, the jailing was only for 15 minutes, and
B. The underlying arrest was lawful as argued above.

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 13th day of July 2026.


Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Plaintiff clearly lacks standing to pursue a lawsuit against Defendant. In order for suits to be filed, the following conditions must be met: (Id. at 2.1)

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:
1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...

As we have argued above, the cause of injury was clearly not against the law, as self-defense does not apply.

 
Johnes said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
HEARSAY

Your Honour,
based on persuasive precedent in [2026] DCR 76, allowing the use of the hearsay objection on non-witness related matters, we ask that the Court strikes P-003.

It shows an unsworn, out-of-court testimony that Plaintiff is trying to use as evidence. These may be unreliable and therefore the Court should not use them as sources of reliable information.

Click to expand...
Sustained
 
Johnes said:

Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Plaintiff clearly lacks standing to pursue a lawsuit against Defendant. In order for suits to be filed, the following conditions must be met: (Id. at 2.1)


As we have argued above, the cause of injury was clearly not against the law, as self-defense does not apply.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

The Defense states their legal arguments as fact and expects the Court to simply assume they are true.

It seems this case is about whether defense of another might be considered self-defense under Redmontian law.

The Court finds this question worthy of litigation, and declines to dismiss the case at this time.
 
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
 
juniperfig said:
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
The courtroom is not the place for settlement negotiations. You are warned that further actions like this will result in Contempt of Court charges.
 
Good afternoon your honor. I saw your post stating that you are no longer on strike - is this case resuming? With the majority of the DOJ still being on strike is there a suitable representative for the defense?
 
I'm your Judge.


There are no witnesses requested, so we'll proceed with a final closing brief.

@SteelRain Please prepare and respond with a Closing Statement by 8/3/26 at 9pm EDT withe @Ebborsnam (the CW) having 72 Hours after submission in opposition.

Include all arguments, point to the evidence, and clarify points that you'd like to make.
 
Muggy21 said:
I'm your Judge.


There are no witnesses requested, so we'll proceed with a final closing brief.

@SteelRain Please prepare and respond with a Closing Statement by 8/3/26 at 9pm EDT withe @Ebborsnam (the CW) having 72 Hours after submission in opposition.

Include all arguments, point to the evidence, and clarify points that you'd like to make.
Click to expand...
Your Honor the Plaintiff would like to request 24 hours to submit witness lists. The Plaintiff was waiting for the strikes to conclude and until a new Judge and Representative for the Defense were assigned.
 
SteelRain said:
Your Honor the Plaintiff would like to request 24 hours to submit witness lists. The Plaintiff was waiting for the strikes to conclude and until a new Judge and Representative for the Defense were assigned.
Click to expand...

You literally asked if the Court was still on strike, the Court responded. Now you question that?
What would your witnesses attest to?
 
Yes, your honor. The previous Judge resigned publicly shortly after his reply. Then the defense withdrew. Apologies if any procedures were broken but the Plaintiff was waiting for a Judge and a representative for the defense and the proper go-ahead to continue.

Additionally, because of the length of time since the initial case filing and the volatility of the server's player base, we wanted to wait until a Judge had been assigned before we verified with our witnesses that they are still able to testify.

Our witnesses would attest to the specific laws in question. One of our witnesses was the acquaintance noted in the initial case filing and will testify that he was in fear for his life. He would also testify that had the Plaintiff not intervened then he could have lost his life.
 
SteelRain said:
Yes, your honor. The previous Judge resigned publicly shortly after his reply. Then the defense withdrew. Apologies if any procedures were broken but the Plaintiff was waiting for a Judge and a representative for the defense and the proper go-ahead to continue.

Additionally, because of the length of time since the initial case filing and the volatility of the server's player base, we wanted to wait until a Judge had been assigned before we verified with our witnesses that they are still able to testify.

Our witnesses would attest to the specific laws in question. One of our witnesses was the acquaintance noted in the initial case filing and will testify that he was in fear for his life. He would also testify that had the Plaintiff not intervened then he could have lost his life.
Click to expand...

Denied.

This case has been ongoing since June 19th and the identity of these witnesses were known to you PRIOR to discovery and PRIOR to the strikes. You should've included them earlier.

Further, witnesses who "attest to the specific laws" would be rejected.
 
Muggy21 said:
Denied.

This case has been ongoing since June 19th and the identity of these witnesses were known to you PRIOR to discovery and PRIOR to the strikes. You should've included them earlier.

Further, witnesses who "attest to the specific laws" would be rejected.
Click to expand...
Understood, your honor. The Plaintiff will submit our closing arguments to the Court by the given deadline. Thank you.
 
Muggy21 said:
I'm your Judge.


There are no witnesses requested, so we'll proceed with a final closing brief.

@SteelRain Please prepare and respond with a Closing Statement by 8/3/26 at 9pm EDT withe @Ebborsnam (the CW) having 72 Hours after submission in opposition.

Include all arguments, point to the evidence, and clarify points that you'd like to make.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, is there a particular reason for skipping opening statements?
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The core question before the Court is straightforward: whether the Plaintiff’s actions constituted lawful self defense under Part I Section 6(10) of the Criminal Code Act, and whether the Department of Homeland Security therefore imposed an unlawful conviction, fine, and term of imprisonment.


I. THE FACTS ARE LARGELY UNDISPUTED​


In its Answer to Complaint, the Commonwealth:

1) Affirmed that the Plaintiff was chatting with an acquaintance;

2)Did not contest that LavBebik initiated the shooting against the Plaintiff’s acquaintance;

3)Affirmed that the Plaintiff defended himself and the acquaintance by shooting and killing LavBebik in self defence

4)Affirmed that LavBebik returned and shot again;

5)Did not contest that the exchanges continued for approximately two minutes across multiple returns by the aggressor.

The Commonwealth’s own admissions establish that the Plaintiff was not the initial aggressor and that lethal force was used only after an armed attack had already begun against a person standing with the Plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is consistent with these admissions.


II. THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF SELF DEFENSE​


Part I Section 6(10) of the Criminal Code Act provides the following two conditions:

(a) A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied.
(b) Crimes committed can be appealed under a claim of self defense, at which point all punishments are to be delayed until after the appeal.

The Commonwealth’s sole substantive defense is a narrow textual argument: that the definite article “the individual” confines the protection to defense of oneself alone and excludes defense of another. This reading is neither required by the text nor consistent with the purpose and spirit of the Code.


III. “THE INDIVIDUAL” DOES NOT EXCLUDE DEFENSE OF OTHERS​


1) The statute does not say “against himself” or “against the actor.” It uses the ordinary phrase “against the individual.” In context, “the individual” simply identifies the person who is the target of the criminal action. Nothing in the wording affirmatively prohibits a third party from responding to that threat.

2) Part I Section 2 of the Criminal Code Act directs that the Code “shall be interpreted to give effect to its purpose and the spirit of the law” and that courts “must avoid construing provisions in a manner that produces absurd, unjust, or unintended results.” A construction that forces a citizen to stand idle while an acquaintance is being shot at produces precisely such an unjust and absurd result.

3) Castle Law Part I Section 6(9) expressly authorizes defense of “themselves, their property, or others.” The existence of an explicit “or others” clause in the immediately preceding subsection does not compel the conclusion that self defense under Section 6(10) excludes third parties; it simply shows that Congress knows how to speak more broadly when it wishes. The more natural reading is that Section 6(10) supplies the general standard of reasonableness and proportionality that applies whenever a defensive response is raised.

4) This Court itself recognized the issue as open and worthy of litigation when it denied the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss, stating that the case concerns the question “whether defense of another might be considered self-defense under Redmontian law.”

IV. THE RESPONSE WAS REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE​


Even under the Commonwealth’s preferred reading, the Plaintiff’s conduct satisfied every element of Section 6(10)(a):

1) An imminent threat existed: LavBebik was actively firing a firearm.

2) A criminal action (attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon) had been directly made against a person present with the Plaintiff.

3) The Plaintiff’s response was defensive, not preemptive or retaliatory; it occurred only after shots were fired and continued only while the aggressor kept returning to renew the attack.

4) The force used was proportionate to the threat of death by firearm.

The Commonwealth has offered no evidence that the Plaintiff fired first, pursued the aggressor after the threat ceased, or used force beyond what was necessary to stop the ongoing attack.

V. CONSEQUENCES OF THE UNLAWFUL CONVICTION​


Because the Plaintiff’s actions fell within lawful self defense, the subsequent charge of murder, the $350 fine, and the 15-minute imprisonment were without legal foundation. Part I Section 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Act expressly provides for compensation of $50 per minute of imprisonment for offences later found unproven, together with reimbursement of any fine paid.

The additional damages claimed by the Plaintiff: reputational harm, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of the server, flow directly from the same unlawful official action. While the minutiae here are ultimately a matter for the Court’s discretion under the Redmont Civil Code Act, the existence of compensable damages is clear once the conviction itself is found to be unlawful.

The Plaintiff is a respected, practicing attorney in good standing. He currently serves as a head attorney at SingeHeart, Addams and Associates, where he supervises and advises on a multitude of cases. The reputational harm that one undoubtedly suffers from an unlawful murder conviction, a public fine, and a term of imprisonment is both immediate and lasting. In the small professional community of Redmont, such a mark on one’s record calls into question an attorney’s integrity, judgment, and fitness to practice. It undermines client confidence, invites professional scrutiny, and permanently stains a carefully built reputation for honesty and competence. These consequences are not speculative; they flow directly and foreseeably from the Defendant’s false arrest and conviction, and they form a distinct and compensable head of damage under the Redmont Civil Code Act.


VI. CONCLUSION ​


The Commonwealth has admitted the essential facts of the encounter. Its only remaining argument is a hyper technical reading of “the individual” that would leave citizens without legal protection when they intervene to stop an ongoing armed attack on another person. Such a reading is inconsistent with the text, purpose, and spirit of the Criminal Code Act.

​

VII. On Relief​


We respectfully ask that the court:


1) Declare that the Plaintiff acted in lawful self defense under Part I Section 6(10);
2) Order the removal of the murder charge from the Plaintiff’s record;
3) Order reimbursement of the $350 fine;
4) Award compensation of $50 per minute for the 15 minutes of imprisonment ($750);
5) Award $12,500 for the damages caused to the Plaintiff's integrity as an attorney;
6) Award compensation of $15,000 for the emotional distress the Commonwealth has cause the Plaintiff;
7) Award compensation of $25,000 for damages relating to loss of enjoyment on the server;
8) Award such further damages as the Court deems just under the Redmont Civil Code Act for the remaining harms flowing from the unlawful conviction;
9) Award the Plaintiff reasonable legal fees.

We believe that this relief will right the wrongs the Plaintiff has suffered and discourage subsequent or similar issues from arising.

 
Muggy21 said:
I'm your Judge.


There are no witnesses requested, so we'll proceed with a final closing brief.

@SteelRain Please prepare and respond with a Closing Statement by 8/3/26 at 9pm EDT withe @Ebborsnam (the CW) having 72 Hours after submission in opposition.

Include all arguments, point to the evidence, and clarify points that you'd like to make.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, I'm deeply sorry for pissing the deadline on this. I got the deadline of this case mixed up with another case.

I am fully aware that the court may deny to let the Commonwealth post its closing statement. Regardless, I'm requesting a post-hoc extension for this deadline.
 
Ebborsnam said:
Your Honor, I'm deeply sorry for pissing the deadline on this. I got the deadline of this case mixed up with another case.

I am fully aware that the court may deny to let the Commonwealth post its closing statement. Regardless, I'm requesting a post-hoc extension for this deadline.
Click to expand...

You have 24 Hours.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
This case rests on a question of legal interpretation: whether Part I §6(10) of the Criminal Code Act permits an individual to claim self-defense when the criminal action being defended against is directed at another individual.
The Commonwealth asserts that the statute does not provide such a defense. Because the Plaintiff's own filing establishes that he intervened in an attack directed initially at his acquaintance, the subsequent arrest was not unlawful.

I. THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE
The Commonwealth does not dispute that LavBebik was the initial aggressor.
However, this does not answer the legal question before the Court. The fact that an individual was attacked does not mean another individual who intervenes is entitled to claim self-defense.

II. SELF-DEFENSE
Part I § 6(10)(a) of the Criminal Code Act defines self-defense as:
"A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied."
This provision states "against the individual."
The statute does not state "against the individual or another person." Nor does it state that a person may claim self-defense when a criminal action is committed against a third party.
Part I § 6(9), the Castle Law provision, expressly refers to defending "themselves, their property, or others."
The legislature clearly demonstrated that it was capable of including the protection of "others".
Section 6(10), however, does not contain that language.

III. PRECEDENT
The Commonwealth acknowledges that this Court is not bound by decisions of the District Court. Nevertheless, such decisions may serve as persuasive authority when they address similar legal questions. In Capouti v. Commonwealth of Redmont, DCR 49 [2025] the Court dismissed the case sua sponte, reasoning that although a threat may have been made against other individuals, no threat had been made against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s killing of JamesTheSlay was murder, making the Plaintiff's arrest lawful.
The Commonwealth respectfully requests the court to adopt the reasoning DCR 49 [2025] and uphold the precedent.

IV. THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE UNSUPPORTED
Even in the case that this Court were to find the Plaintiff's arrest or conviction unlawful, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any grounds for the extensive damages sought. The Plaintiff classified all of the damages claimed as “compensation.” However, the Civil Code Act expressly distinguishes between compensatory and consequential damages and imposes specific evidentiary requirements for each.
Regarding compensatory damages, the Civil Code Act provides:
“2. Compensatory Damages
(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.
(b) Compensatory damages are limited to either the authorised statute’s limit or the actual amount of damages, whichever is lower.”
Accordingly, a claimant is not entitled to compensatory damages merely by asserting that they suffered harm. The Plaintiff must establish an actual pecuniary loss falling within the statutory requirements and must provide sufficient evidence of the amount of that loss.
The Civil Code Act states regarding consequential damages:
“5. Consequential Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Consequential Damages are an award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable. These damages include, but are not limited to:
(i) Humiliation - Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.
(ii) Worsening of Conditions - Situations in which damage is caused by a party that caused harm to another party that were unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.
(iii) Loss of Enjoyment - Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.
(b) Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive.
(2) Award:
(a) Consequential damages must be proven on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable person, when subjected to the same circumstances, would also experience the same type of consequential damage.
(b) A single claim of consequential damages shall not exceed $50,000.
(c) The cap on consequential damages shall not apply when punitive damages are also awarded.
(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) In assessing a consequential damage award, the judicial officer must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof according to the standard of a balance of probabilities.”
The Plaintiff has failed to satisfy these requirements. There is no sufficient evidence for the alleged losses that is necessary for compensatory damages, nor has the Plaintiff demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that a reasonable person subjected to the same circumstances would have suffered the consequential damages claimed.
Accordingly, even if the Court were to rule in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's requested damages should be denied because they have not been proven in accordance with the civil code act.

 
Ebborsnam said:

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
This case rests on a question of legal interpretation: whether Part I §6(10) of the Criminal Code Act permits an individual to claim self-defense when the criminal action being defended against is directed at another individual.
The Commonwealth asserts that the statute does not provide such a defense. Because the Plaintiff's own filing establishes that he intervened in an attack directed initially at his acquaintance, the subsequent arrest was not unlawful.

I. THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE
The Commonwealth does not dispute that LavBebik was the initial aggressor.
However, this does not answer the legal question before the Court. The fact that an individual was attacked does not mean another individual who intervenes is entitled to claim self-defense.

II. SELF-DEFENSE
Part I § 6(10)(a) of the Criminal Code Act defines self-defense as:
"A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied."
This provision states "against the individual."
The statute does not state "against the individual or another person." Nor does it state that a person may claim self-defense when a criminal action is committed against a third party.
Part I § 6(9), the Castle Law provision, expressly refers to defending "themselves, their property, or others."
The legislature clearly demonstrated that it was capable of including the protection of "others".
Section 6(10), however, does not contain that language.

III. PRECEDENT
The Commonwealth acknowledges that this Court is not bound by decisions of the District Court. Nevertheless, such decisions may serve as persuasive authority when they address similar legal questions. In Capouti v. Commonwealth of Redmont, DCR 49 [2025] the Court dismissed the case sua sponte, reasoning that although a threat may have been made against other individuals, no threat had been made against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s killing of JamesTheSlay was murder, making the Plaintiff's arrest lawful.
The Commonwealth respectfully requests the court to adopt the reasoning DCR 49 [2025] and uphold the precedent.

IV. THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE UNSUPPORTED
Even in the case that this Court were to find the Plaintiff's arrest or conviction unlawful, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any grounds for the extensive damages sought. The Plaintiff classified all of the damages claimed as “compensation.” However, the Civil Code Act expressly distinguishes between compensatory and consequential damages and imposes specific evidentiary requirements for each.
Regarding compensatory damages, the Civil Code Act provides:
“2. Compensatory Damages
(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.
(b) Compensatory damages are limited to either the authorised statute’s limit or the actual amount of damages, whichever is lower.”
Accordingly, a claimant is not entitled to compensatory damages merely by asserting that they suffered harm. The Plaintiff must establish an actual pecuniary loss falling within the statutory requirements and must provide sufficient evidence of the amount of that loss.
The Civil Code Act states regarding consequential damages:
“5. Consequential Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Consequential Damages are an award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable. These damages include, but are not limited to:
(i) Humiliation - Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.
(ii) Worsening of Conditions - Situations in which damage is caused by a party that caused harm to another party that were unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.
(iii) Loss of Enjoyment - Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.
(b) Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive.
(2) Award:
(a) Consequential damages must be proven on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable person, when subjected to the same circumstances, would also experience the same type of consequential damage.
(b) A single claim of consequential damages shall not exceed $50,000.
(c) The cap on consequential damages shall not apply when punitive damages are also awarded.
(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) In assessing a consequential damage award, the judicial officer must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof according to the standard of a balance of probabilities.”
The Plaintiff has failed to satisfy these requirements. There is no sufficient evidence for the alleged losses that is necessary for compensatory damages, nor has the Plaintiff demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that a reasonable person subjected to the same circumstances would have suffered the consequential damages claimed.
Accordingly, even if the Court were to rule in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's requested damages should be denied because they have not been proven in accordance with the civil code act.

Click to expand...
Your Honor, I mistakenly thought this was a Federal Case. Permission to amend closing statement to reflect District instead of Federal court?
 
This would be my new closing statement.

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

This case rests on a question of legal interpretation: whether Part I §6(10) of the Criminal Code Act permits an individual to claim self-defense when the criminal action being defended against is directed at another individual.

The Commonwealth asserts that the statute does not provide such a defense. Because the Plaintiff's own filing establishes that he intervened in an attack directed initially at his acquaintance, the subsequent arrest was not unlawful.

I. THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE
The Commonwealth does not dispute that LavBebik was the initial aggressor.
However, this does not answer the legal question before the Court. The fact that an individual was attacked does not mean another individual who intervenes is entitled to claim self-defense.

II. SELF-DEFENSE
Part I § 6(10)(a) of the Criminal Code Act defines self-defense as:
"A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied."

This provision states "against the individual."

The statute does not state "against the individual or another person." Nor does it state that a person may claim self-defense when a criminal action is committed against a third party.

Part I § 6(9), the Castle Law provision, expressly refers to defending "themselves, their property, or others."
The legislature clearly demonstrated that it was capable of including the protection of "others".
Section 6(10), however, does not contain that language.

III. PRECEDENT
In Capouti v. Commonwealth of Redmont, DCR 49 [2025] the Court dismissed the case sua sponte, reasoning that although a threat may have been made against other individuals, no threat had been made against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s killing of JamesTheSlay was murder, making the Plaintiff's arrest lawful.

The Commonwealth respectfully requests the court to adopt the reasoning DCR 49 [2025] and uphold the precedent.

IV. THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARE UNSUPPORTED
Even in the case that this Court were to find the Plaintiff's arrest or conviction unlawful, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any grounds for the extensive damages sought. The Plaintiff classified all of the damages claimed as “compensation.” However, the Civil Code Act expressly distinguishes between compensatory and consequential damages and imposes specific evidentiary requirements for each.

Regarding compensatory damages, the Civil Code Act provides:
“2. Compensatory Damages

(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.

(b) Compensatory damages are limited to either the authorised statute’s limit or the actual amount of damages, whichever is lower.”

Accordingly, a claimant is not entitled to compensatory damages merely by asserting that they suffered harm. The Plaintiff must establish an actual pecuniary loss falling within the statutory requirements and must provide sufficient evidence of the amount of that loss.

The Civil Code Act states regarding consequential damages:

“5. Consequential Damages

(1) Definition:

(a) Consequential Damages are an award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable. These damages include, but are not limited to:

(i) Humiliation - Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.

(ii) Worsening of Conditions - Situations in which damage is caused by a party that caused harm to another party that were unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.

(iii) Loss of Enjoyment - Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.

(b) Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive.

(2) Award:

(a) Consequential damages must be proven on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable person, when subjected to the same circumstances, would also experience the same type of consequential damage.

(b) A single claim of consequential damages shall not exceed $50,000.

(c) The cap on consequential damages shall not apply when punitive damages are also awarded.

(3) Diminution of Award:

(a) In assessing a consequential damage award, the judicial officer must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof according to the standard of a balance of probabilities.”

The Plaintiff has failed to satisfy these requirements. There is no sufficient evidence for the alleged losses that is necessary for compensatory damages, nor has the Plaintiff demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that a reasonable person subjected to the same circumstances would have suffered the consequential damages claimed.

Accordingly, even if the Court were to rule in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's requested damages should be denied because they have not been proven in accordance with the civil code act.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top