Lawsuit: In Session 15fine v wttn2c [2025] DCR 32

1

15fine

Citizen
5th Anniversary
15fine
15fine
Barrister
Joined
Apr 6, 2025
Messages
4

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


15fine
Plaintiff

v.

wttn2c
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On April 9th, 2025, the Plaintiff was twice murdered by the Defendant. Following these two murders, the Defendant proceeded to aim a weapon at the Plaintiff.

I. PARTIES
1. 15fine
2. wttn2c

II. FACTS
1. On the 9th of April, 2025, the Plaintiff was at spawn, with the intention of taking a relaxing walk through the city.
2. The Plaintiff was attacked and murdered by the Defendant. (P-001)
3. Upon returning to spawn, the Plaintiff was murdered a second time by the Defendant. (P-002)
4. Upon returning to spawn following this second murder, the Defendant brandished a firearm at the Plaintiff. (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant caused the Plaintiff to live in fear in Redmont. What the Plaintiff once perceived as an orderly city has now been transformed into one where the Plaintiff must be constantly alert, cautious, and vigilant, out of fear of being unlawfully attacked again.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

  1. Consequential Damages:
    • Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont: Under §7(1)(a)(III) of the Legal Damages Act, damages can be awarded for situations where ‘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’. The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 on this ground.
  2. Punitive Damages: The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in punitive damages to penalize the Defendant for their flagrant disregard for the law, and the wellbeing of their fellow citizens. Plaintiff believes that committing murder twice, and then threatening the victim by aiming a gun at them, rises to the level of ‘outrageous’ harm as stipulated in §5(2)(a) of the Legal Damages Act.
  3. Legal Fees: The Plaintiff is a licensed barrister representing himself, and seeks $6,000 in legal fees (equal to 30% of the total value of the case) under §9(2)(c) of the Legal Damages Act.

V. Evidence
The Plaintiff does not intend to summon witnesses in this matter.

p-001.png

p-002.png

p-003.png

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 11th day of April 2025

 
Your Honor,
I would lIke to file a Amicus Brief
 

Writ of Summons


@wttn2c is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of 15fine v. wttn2c [2025] DCR 32

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.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

As the 72-hour period has now lapsed without a response from the defendant, the plaintiff moves for a summary judgement.

 
15fine said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

As the 72-hour period has now lapsed without a response from the defendant, the plaintiff moves for a summary judgement.

Click to expand...
Motion for Summary Judgement Denied. A public defender has been requested for the defendant.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

15fine

Plaintiff

v.

wttn2c

Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defence NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the plaintiff intended to have a relaxing walk, but AFFIRMS they were near spawn.

2. The Defence NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENIES that the defendant murdered somebody.

3. The Defence NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENIES the plaintiff returning to spawn, or that the defendant murdered someone a second time.

4. The Defence AFFIRMS a weapon was being pointed, but NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENIES that it was being pointed at the plaintiff.

II. DEFENCES

1. There is no verification that these images belong to the plaintiff.

2. Murder and Threats are Criminal Actions not Civil Actions, these actions should be reported to the authorities and action decided within the department.

3. There’s a reasonable expectation of prevention on the plaintiff’s behalf, and going to the same location as a perceived ‘threat’ is not prevention. There are alternative spawns and towns the plaintiff could venture, and free buses and trains to get them where they need to go.

4. The idea that this rose to the level of outrageous conduct is silly, Murder is a daily occurance in Redmont and this was a small line of alleged murders.

5. It’s unlikely that this action resulted in loss of enjoyment, or rose to the level of outrageous conduct.

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 16th day of APRIL 2025

 
We will now be entering Discovery, Discovery will last 72 hours starting now.
 
Since Discovery is now over, The plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statement
 
Your honour, is it possible to receive a 12-hour extension on this? I have been rather ill the past few days and therefore could not make the deadline.
 
15fine said:
Your honour, is it possible to receive a 12-hour extension on this? I have been rather ill the past few days and therefore could not make the deadline.
Click to expand...
Granted
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

The facts of this case are simple.

The Plaintiff was twice murdered by the Defendant. There is no doubt about this fact. P-001 and P-002 clearly demonstrate this. The Defence will attempt to confound this court, claiming that ‘there is no verification that the images belong to the plaintiff’. Such verification has not been needed in this court before, and as recently as a few days ago, this Court upheld that. (See the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, Ethamn v Faldorix [2025] DCR 30)
There is therefore no doubt that the murders were committed.

The Defendant can be clearly seen to brandish a gun at the Plaintiff. There is also no doubt of this fact. P-003 is a screenshot showing the Defendant with a gun in his hands, pointed squarely at the Plaintiff. To claim otherwise is bizarre, and asks this Court to suspend all logic and deny the clearest possible photographic evidence.

This case hinges on what this Court deems to be reasonable:
Is it reasonable to suffer emotional distress after being murdered — not once, but twice? Would being unjustly attacked, without provocation, while simply trying to enjoy the sights of the beautiful city of Redmont, cause a reasonable person a loss of enjoyment? Is murder outrageous conduct? Would having a gun pulled on you cause fear?

The Plaintiff argues that the answer to each of these questions is a resounding ‘yes’.

We ask that this Court weigh the evidence before it and reach the only just conclusion, and rules in favour of the plaintiff.

 
The defense has 72 hours to post their opening statement
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case is pretty straight forward. There’s simply not enough evidence to prove the damages alleged. The plaintiff has not shown in any way how they are not able to engage in certain activities in a way they did before the harm, and this string of alleged petty crimes does not rise to the level of outrageous, especially when the plaintiff put themselves into harm's way.

Reasonable prevention of harm
While these images may show a series of alleged murders, it is not clear that the Plaintiff had intended to avoid harm in any of these instances.

In the case of xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16, Justice Matthhew100x notes - ‘plaintiffs didn't take any appropriate measures in trying to get the DoJ to do their jobs before suing the department.’ -- ‘the case Lord_Donuticus vs The DoJ & Executive Branch. The Hon. Judge Matt_SO dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not take any steps in reporting the crime.’

While the scenario is different, the core idea is the same -- The plaintiff has a responsibility to prevent harm caused before pursuing damages that otherwise would have been prevented had they taken steps to prevent that harm.

P-001, it is clear that they were allegedly murdered and then took it upon themselves to stand in front of the alleged murderer, and then take pictures of their chat.
P-002, shows the plaintiff just outside of spawn at CBD036 -- Taking pictures of their chat again in an insecure area where they were allegedly murdered just moments ago.
P-003 Is the most heinous of all in this regard, in that the plaintiff stands just outside of spawn, putting themselves in immediate danger of this alleged murderer.

Relaxing Walks in Redmont
Redmont has many alternative routes in which to explore the city that would not put a citizen in continued danger.
For the benefit of the plaintiff and for the record of the court, I will make those known.
/airport , /aventura , /spawn-north , /spawn-south , /university , /willow , /oakridge

In addition many locational tools are available for the plaintiff to traverse where they see fit.
/gps <plot> , as well as /directions <plot>
Which will give you a locator where you're going, and offer busses/trains to get there respectively.

Noting that public transportation is and has been free in Redmont, this is not a financial burden.

Plaintiffs Opening statement
If the plaintiff wants to do what is reasonable, perhaps they should consider some of the following:
Not standing in front of someone that allegedly murdered you
Not returning to the same area and expecting them to be gone
Not standing just outside of a safe area to take pictures of an alleged murderer

This court rules on a balance of probabilities according to Judicial Standards Act Section 13, and the defence asks that you find that in a balance of probabilities - The plaintiff likely did not suffer the damages as outlined in the Legal Damages Act.

Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont is outlined as ‘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’ -- Yet the Plaintiff has failed to show in what way they have lost the ability to engage in certain activities, even by way of reasonable person tests, this fails to encapsulate the extent of the damages if any that have been caused.

Punitive Damages is outlined as ‘damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future’ -- The conduct here wasn’t particularly outrageous, this was a standard ‘petty crime’ and does not rise to the level of outrageous conduct.

There was no harassment, the plaintiff did not remove themselves from the situation - arguably they have put themselves into the situation incurring harm upon themselves, and this court should not enable these kinds of cases by allowing damages to be given.

 
As no witnesses were called, The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing statement
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top