- Joined
- Jun 1, 2026
- Messages
- 69
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
MMiqa
Plaintiff
v.
ZachOfPotatoes10
Defendant
COMPLAINT
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff had been a member of the Commonwealth of Redmont for approximately one day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime. The Plaintiff was attempting to begin their career as a Fisher and engage in lawful gameplay in Aventura. Without any provocation whatsoever, the Defendant, ZachOfPotatoes10, attacked the Plaintiff three consecutive times in Aventura — a designated non-PvP city area — and on a fourth occasion attempted to attack the Plaintiff again before being stopped by the server's own murder limit system.
This Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 on the basis that wrongful death is not a recognised civil cause of action under Redmont law and that the Plaintiff had not identified a concurrent Civil Code violation permitting civil damages under RCCA Part II Section 4(3). The Plaintiff now refiles on a fundamentally different legal basis. The Plaintiff does not rely on wrongful death. The Plaintiff does not rely on RCCA Part II Section 4(3). The Plaintiff relies on Assault — a crime expressly defined under Criminal Code Act Part IV Section 1 — and on RCCA Part II Section 4(2), which expressly provides that this Code operates concurrently with the Criminal Code and permits civil damages to be sought for crimes. Section 4(2) requires no concurrent Civil Code violation. It requires only that the underlying wrong constitute a crime — which Assault plainly does. The legal deficiency identified by this Court in DCR 67 has therefore been cured.
I do not bring this action lightly. The Defendant's conduct — four consecutive unprovoked assaults against a defenceless new player on their very first day — caused real and lasting harm. The law provides a remedy for this conduct, and the Plaintiff seeks it.
I. PARTIES
1. MMiqa (Plaintiff) — Licensed Attorney, Redmont Bar Association, appearing in a self-represented capacity.
2. ZachOfPotatoes10 (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff was present in Aventura, a designated city area of the Commonwealth of Redmont where PvP combat is not permitted.
2. At the time of the attacks, the Plaintiff had been a member of the Commonwealth of Redmont for approximately one day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime.
3. The Plaintiff was attempting to perform their Fisher duties and engage in lawful gameplay at the time of the attacks.
4. The Defendant initiated unprovoked combat against the Plaintiff on three separate occasions. On each occasion, the in-game system confirmed: "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." (P-001, P-002, P-003)
5. On each of the three occasions, the Defendant caused the death of the Plaintiff.
6. The in-game system confirmed on each occasion: "911 ZachOfPotatoes10 has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities."
7. Approximately two in-game hours after the last incident, the Defendant returned and attempted to attack the Plaintiff again in a separate and distinct incident. The server system displayed: 'You've been healed and ZachOfPotatoes10 cannot kill you because they've reached the murder limit.' (P-004) This incident demonstrates that the Defendant's conduct was not impulsive — the Defendant actively sought out the Plaintiff again after a significant period of time, confirming a deliberate and targeted pattern of criminal conduct against the Plaintiff.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CLAIM I: ASSAULT — Criminal Code Act Part IV Section 1
The Criminal Code Act Part IV Section 1 defines Assault as an intentional act that causes another player to apprehend immediate unlawful force, or the direct application of unlawful force to another player.
The Defendant committed four counts of Assault against the Plaintiff:
Count I: The Defendant intentionally initiated combat against the Plaintiff in Aventura without provocation, directly applying unlawful force. The in-game system confirmed "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight." (P-001)
Count II: The Defendant initiated a second unprovoked attack against the Plaintiff in Aventura, again directly applying unlawful force. The in-game system confirmed "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight." (P-002)
Count III: The Defendant initiated a third unprovoked attack against the Plaintiff in Aventura, again directly applying unlawful force. The in-game system confirmed "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight." (P-003)
Count IV: The Defendant attempted a fourth attack against the Plaintiff, placing the Plaintiff in immediate apprehension of unlawful force. The server's murder limit system was triggered — confirming the Defendant's habitual pattern of assault. (P-004)
CLAIM II: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT — RCCA Part II Section 4(2)
The Redmont Civil Code Act Part II Section 4(2) provides that this Code operates concurrently with the Criminal Code, "which permits civil damages to be sought for crimes." This provision is not merely a conflict of laws rule — it is an express, operative grant of the right to seek civil damages for criminal conduct. The words "permits civil damages to be sought for crimes" are not descriptive of some other mechanism; they are themselves the mechanism. They require no additional RCCA violation, no additional civil tort, and no additional statutory authority. They require only that the underlying wrong constitute a crime.
Assault is expressly defined as a crime under Criminal Code Act Part IV Section 1. The Defendant committed four counts of Assault. Civil damages are therefore available under Section 4(2) as a matter of plain statutory language.
The Defendant may argue that Section 4(2) merely establishes that the two Codes operate concurrently, and that a separate civil cause of action is still required. This argument fails for three reasons.
First, it renders the words "which permits civil damages to be sought for crimes" entirely superfluous. A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that no provision shall be construed as meaningless. If Section 4(2) merely described concurrent operation without independently permitting civil recovery, the phrase "which permits civil damages to be sought for crimes" would have no operative effect whatsoever. Courts must give effect to every word of a statute.
Second, this Court in DCR 67 relied on Section 4(3) — not Section 4(2) — in finding that the Plaintiff had not identified a concurrent Civil Code violation. Section 4(3) expressly requires both a CCA crime and an RCCA violation. Section 4(2) contains no such requirement. These are two distinct and independent provisions. The reasoning in DCR 67 does not apply to a claim brought under Section 4(2).
Third, the Criminal Code Act Part I Section 6(1)(a) independently provides that "in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages." This provision exists in the CCA itself — not in the RCCA — and requires no RCCA violation of any kind. Read together, Section 4(2) of the RCCA and Section 6(1)(a) of the CCA create a clear and self-sufficient framework for civil recovery arising from criminal conduct.
Conviction of a criminal offence is not required for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit. (CCA Part I Section 6(1)(b))
CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES — RCCA Part III Section 4
In the alternative, should the Court find punitive damages unavailable, the Plaintiff seeks nominal damages of $7,500 in recognition that a legal cause of action has been established. Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500 and there shall be no diminution of award or defences to nominal damages.
CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES — RCCA Part III Section 3
The Defendant's conduct was outrageous within the meaning of RCCA Part III Section 3(2)(b):
(a) The Defendant intentionally attacked a brand new, defenceless player with no weapons or armour on their very first day in Redmont — three consecutive times without any provocation whatsoever. (Section 3(2)(b)(i) — intended to cause harm)
(b) The Defendant's conduct was deliberate and repeated — attacking the same defenceless new player three times and attempting a fourth demonstrates a wilful and persistent disregard for the Plaintiff's safety. (Section 3(2)(b)(v) — persistent or repeated misconduct)
(c) The server itself was forced to intervene through the murder limit system, confirming the Defendant's pattern of habitual assaults across multiple victims — demonstrating reckless indifference as to whether harm would occur. (Section 3(2)(b)(iii))
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Award nominal damages of $7,500 in recognition that a legal cause of action has been established.
2. Award punitive damages of $15,000 for the deliberate, repeated, and outrageous nature of the Defendant's conduct.
V. EVIDENCE
P-001: Screenshot of system message confirming "ZachOfPotatoes10 has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself" — First assault
VI. WITNESS LIST
1. MMiqa — The Plaintiff will testify regarding the four consecutive unprovoked assaults in Aventura, their status as a brand new player with no weapons or armour, and the absence of any provocation.
2. ZachOfPotatoes10 — The Defendant will testify regarding their decision to assault the Plaintiff four consecutive times without provocation in Aventura, a designated non-PvP zone, and the circumstances surrounding the murder limit being triggered.
The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Redmont Bar Association and appears before this Court in a self-represented capacity.
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 June, 2026
