Lawsuit: Adjourned 15fine v wttn2c [2025] DCR 32

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

15fine

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

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:

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

The Defence has attempted to paint the Plaintiff not as a victim, but as the architect of their own harm — suggesting that being murdered twice is somehow excusable if one fails to teleport to another location.

Respectfully, this is a deeply flawed and untenable proposition.

The Defence’s reliance on the Plaintiff’s movement — where they walked, where they stood, or what commands they could have used — is a distraction. It seeks to shift blame from the Defendant’s violent and outrageous conduct, and place it on the person who was murdered. The Plaintiff has a right to walk through Redmont safely. The Defendant had no right to shoot them. Twice.

The Defence also relies heavily on precedent involving failure to report crimes to the Department of Justice. But this is not a case about government negligence or institutional responsibility. It is a direct tortious action by a private party — the Defendant — who twice murdered the Plaintiff. The Defendant was not acting as a passive risk; he was the active agent of violence. The cases cited by the Defence are not analogous, and their applicability here is misapplied and legally irrelevant to the facts before this Court.

As to the idea that standing near spawn is somehow reckless behavior — are we to accept that Redmont citizens must avoid parts of their own city due to the threat of violence? Must citizens now live in fear — unable to even gather evidence of abuse — lest they be blamed for the violence inflicted upon them?

Your Honour, this exact issue was recently considered in Monacht v. MikeOxlonger [2025] DCR 17. In that case, the Court found that repeated threats, intimidation, and provocation, while a person was merely trying to enjoy the city, could — and did — amount to compensable emotional distress and loss of enjoyment. Importantly, the Court held:

“It is the opinion of the court that the actions of the defense may cause a reasonable person damages… This is exasperated by the fact that the plaintiff was trying to actively enjoy Redmont while this intimidation and harassment occurred.”
Click to expand...

That principle applies directly here. The Plaintiff was trying to peacefully enjoy Redmont. They were murdered twice and had a gun pulled on them — completely unprovoked. That is not "petty crime." That is outrageous conduct that causes fear, anxiety, and distress — exactly the kind of harm the Legal Damages Act is designed to remedy.

The Defence tries to minimize this by arguing that the Plaintiff “didn’t show damages” or “should have walked somewhere else.” But Monacht already settled that the test is not whether someone exhibited visible distress or sought psychiatric care. The test is whether a reasonable person would experience harm from being attacked in the city they call home.

And the answer, Your Honour, is “yes.”

The Plaintiff’s experience mirrors that of the victim in Monacht. The difference? In Monacht, the Defendant provoked a single gunfight. Here, the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff twice.
The Court in Monacht found emotional and enjoyment damages valid — and it should do the same here.

Your Honour, the Defence has made no serious denial of the facts. They have instead tried to cast the Plaintiff as at fault for being murdered. But being murdered is not a result of walking in the wrong place — it is the result of a person choosing violence. And that person is the Defendant.

We ask that the Court follow its own precedent, weigh the overwhelming evidence, and rule in favour of the Plaintiff — awarding damages that reflect the real and serious harm suffered. Thank you.

 
The defense has 72 hours to post their closing statement
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honour,


This case like many others is nothing more than an attempt to squeeze money out of a situation where there is no proven damages. If damages were caused by the defendant, the plaintiff has failed to provide meaningful testimony, evidence, or anything more than a single case law around a deported player with no defence.

In this closing statement the defence intends to show where the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that justifies the damages asked, and clarify the legal theory the defence relies on for this argument.

On plaintiff’s precedent - Monacht v. MikeOxlonger1

While it is a decision made by a judicial officer, and judicial officers rely on each other's rulings, the important contextual points in regard to this case are - The defendant never had an opportunity to deny or otherwise contest the claims.

Yes, the defendant was deported and is offered no rights to a defence, this absolutely should not mean to imply that the lack of defence should constitute precedence towards cases that are offered a legal defence -- The precedence in this case should only apply to deported players and cases in which a deported player is involved, to otherwise consider their verdict would be to apply the precedent formed upon a non-citizen, onto a citizen.

This is upheld by yourself in a case that the plaintiff themselves linked and I will provide as well. Ethamn v. faldorix - Verdict - ‘that case went straight to verdict as the defendant was deported and was not entitled to a defense. This changes the standard of evidence as the plaintiff was not entitled to argue their case or call and question witnesses. As this is no fault of the plaintiff it cannot be held against them in deciding the verdict.‘

On the matter of damage or harm caused

The alleged murders themselves are already a crime (Violent Offences Act - Section 5(7)), and have fines and jail time associated with them - the matter for the court today is whether or not the alleged murders caused civil harm, NOT criminal harm.

Dartanboy produced a verdict around this concept in xAntho_ny v. Rampantmech - ‘The District Court recognizes that illegal actions were taken by the Defendant, but he has (presumably) already been punished for the crime of Murder. The Court does not see a need to award any damages for Loss of Enjoyment in this case’

Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont

Notably in xAntho_ny v. Rampantmech the plaintiff also asks for Loss of Enjoyment damages with their prayer for relief as ‘could not do such things as walking around the city, standing somewhere, and talking to other players around the server’ - Similar to the Plaintiff’s prayer in this case ‘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.’

ethamn v. faldorix In this recent case in the DCR, you noted yourself that ‘the plaintiff has not outlined any action in which they were prevented to participate in’, and the defence believes that to be the case here as well, as I pointed out in my opening statement, many other avenues are available to citizens to participate in the action he wanted -- ‘A walk through the city’

We ask that the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont damages not be awarded for failing to provide any evidence that they had lost any enjoyment, or that their ability to engage in certain activities is hindered. - ‘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.’ ( Legal Damages Act - Section 7.1.a(iii) )

Punitive Damages

In ethamn v. faldorix - the Punitive damages there relied on other damages brought up by the plaintiff. ‘Because the punitive damages rely on the outrageous nature of the previous two damages, the court cannot grant punitive damages after throwing out the same damages.’ -- Where they had relied; as the plaintiff does in this case, on a ‘reasonable persons test’ - that the action itself is ‘outrageous’ and ‘unreasonable’ to such an extent that they demand damages where damages have not otherwise been proven.

Legal Damages Act - Section 5.3
" (3) Diminution of award:
(a) In assessing a punitive damage award, the judicial officer can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.
(b) A defense against punitive damages can be made to assess whether or not conduct was “outrageous”. "

In line with 5.3(a) - We ask that you view the extent of the harm to the plaintiff with the evidence on the record and in line with 5.3(b) the defence suggests that with the lack of evidence on the record fails to meet the bar for what should be outrageous, additionally as the defence has hammered in our closing and opening -- The plaintiff has a reasonable expectation to prevent harm caused, and not to seek it out.

Generally speaking, a ‘reasonable person’ wouldn’t put themselves into harms way by (P-001), opening your chat in front of your alleged killer to take a picture or by (P-003), standing just outside of a safe-zone to take a picture in front of your alleged killer. These are not the actions of someone that ‘must be constantly alert, cautious, and vigilant, out of fear of being unlawfully attacked again.’

On Judicial Standards

Based on the Judicial Standard Act
Section 13(a) - Standards of Proof - ‘Balance of Probabilities - Required in civil actions.’
Section 14 - Burden of Proof - ‘The onus of the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.’

As well as the verdict in Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont - ‘First and foremost, the burden of proof is never on the accused, nor does it ever shift to the accused at any point.’

The defence must once again reiterate that the plaintiff has failed to produce any proof or evidence of the harm alleged - The plaintiff might wish for the murders to count as ‘proof of harm’ for civil damages, but they cannot prove anything other than that the alleged killer was in front of them.

It is not the fault of the defence that the plaintiff refused to call any witnesses to testify on their behalf - As they are pro se legal representation, it’s not as if they were unavailable to do it, they simply ‘did not intend to’ (15fine v wttn2c - Initial Filing)

On the plaintiff’s closing

To quote the Plaintiff’ ‘The Defence has attempted to paint the Plaintiff not as a victim, but as the architect of their own harm — suggesting that being murdered twice is somehow excusable if one fails to teleport to another location.’
This interpretation has a fundamental flaw -- The plaintiff seeks to assign the murder as the harm and sweeps over the civil harm that may or may not have been caused by the alleged crime of murder.

While the plaintiff is correct in that the verdict in case of xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16 - Is about a failure to report a crime to a department, the defence must make clear that we intend to use this as a persuasive argument for what we believe is a similar core issue - ‘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.’ (15fine v wttn2c - Opening Statement) -- We believe that in this case, and as I stated in my opening that the plaintiff put themselves into harm's way multiple times, P-001 shows this clearly, opening a chat box to immobilize yourself in front of your alleged killer is not preventing harm. Similarly, standing just outside the safezone just to take a picture is also not preventing harm.

Conclusion

The defence asks that you award no damages to the plaintiff for a multitude of reasons as outlined above.

We ask the court to see the situation for what it clearly is - The plaintiff putting themselves into harm’s way to claim they were damaged, and relying on a ‘reasonable persons test’ instead of Witness testimony or evidence of the damages alleged.

Thank you.

 
Case is in recess pending a verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
15fine v. wttn2c [2025] DCR 32.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant murdered the plaintiff twice and pointed a gun at them
2. This murder with the pointed gun prevented the plaintiff from walking through Redmont without fear

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff did not do enough to prevent harm in this case
2. The plaintiff did not provide enough evidence for the damages alleged.

III. THE COURT OPINION
This case seems to rely heavily on the reasonable person's test. Before looking at the damages alleged let's look to the claim of relief.

Would a reasonable person be in fear after being murdered twice and having a gun pointed at them? Yes, the court believe someone would be put in fear. The reasonable persons test does not end here however as there is a responsibility to prevent harm. So, would a reasonable person return to the same place and stand near the person who just killed them? No, a reasonable person would probably avoid the area or at the very least avoid the person. Not only does all the evidence show the plaintiff in the same area, but two of the pieces of evidence (P-1 and P-3) shows the plaintiff standing near their murderer.

The plaintiff seems to expect to be able to be anywhere or near anyone with the expectation of not being harmed which is reasonable. However, after the first murder, that expectation to an extent is broken and for the plaintiff to especially go near the person that caused them harm mere moments ago, the court does not see this as prevention of harm. Therefore, the court cannot find in favor of the plaintiff when they seemed to have willingly put themselves in harm's way after the first murder.


IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Defense.

The DOJ is to fine 15fine $6,000 and unfine Asexualdinosaur the same amount for legal damages.


The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top