Lawsuit: Adjourned Adamtheking05 v. Melwin20king [2026] DCR 53

[s6cond]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
AdamTheKing05 (represented by s6cond)
Plaintiff
v.
Melwin20king
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I am filing this complaint regarding the actions of the defendant, who threatened to kill me unless I paid him $250, and subsequently shot me when I refused. I was compelled to respond to protect my life against the defendant's lethal attack. The defendant's conduct was deliberate, unlawful, and caused me significant harm. I am requesting that the court award civil damages against the defendant for civil extortion and battery.

I. PARTIES

Plaintiff: AdamTheKing05 (represented by s6cond)
Defendant: Melwin20king

II. FACTS

On May 26, 2026, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff at a party.
The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a direct message stating "250 or il kill," demanding $250 under explicit threat of death.
The Plaintiff refused the Defendant's unlawful demand.
Following the refusal, the Defendant shot the Plaintiff, carrying out his threat.
The Plaintiff was compelled to respond to protect his life against the Defendant's lethal attack.
Witnesses Ender_2099 and H4LLOWEEN456 were present at the scene and can attest to the Defendant's aggressive and threatening conduct.
Witness H4LLOWEEN456 confirmed that the Defendant attempted to sell illegal items to the Plaintiff, and shot the Plaintiff when he refused to buy them.
Witness Ender_2099 confirmed that the Defendant also attacked him at the same event.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Civil Extortion
The Defendant intentionally and unlawfully attempted to coerce the Plaintiff into delivering funds by instilling an immediate fear of physical injury and death, mirroring the unlawful conduct defined under Section 29(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act.
Battery
The Defendant committed an unlawful physical attack and harmful contact against the Plaintiff by intentionally shooting him with a firearm after the Plaintiff refused to comply with the extortion demand.

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

Award $800 in Compensatory Damages for the physical battery, medical recovery, and time lost dealing with the unprovoked shooting incident;

Award $700 in Consequential Damages under the framework of Section 29(a)(ix) of the Criminal Code Act for the severe disruption to the Plaintiff's safety, calling, and personal relationships at a public event;

Award $500 in Punitive Damages to punish the Defendant's clear malicious intent as evidenced by the explicit threat "250 or il kill," and to deter future unlawful extortion and violence in public spaces;

Grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE
P-001: Direct message screenshot showing the Defendant sending "250 or il kill" to the Plaintiff, demonstrating the extortion threat.

P-002: Screenshot showing witnesses Ender_2099 and H4LLOWEEN456 present at the scene alongside the Defendant.

P-003: Chat log screenshot showing witness H4LLOWEEN456 stating the Defendant attempted to sell illegal items and shot the Plaintiff upon refusal.

P-004: Chat log screenshot showing witness Ender_2099 confirming the Defendant attacked him at the same event.

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 26th day of May 2026
s6cond
Counsel for AdamTheKing05

 

[aubunny]

Writ of Summons

@Melwin is hereby summoned to the District Court as Defendant in the case of AdamTheKing05 v Melwin20king [2026] DCR 53

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.

 

[Melwin]

Writ of Summons

@Melwin is hereby summoned to the District Court as Defendant in the case of AdamTheKing05 v Melwin20king [2026] DCR 53

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.

yo what am i supposed to do?

 

[aubunny]

yo what am i supposed to do?

Simply make yourself present, which that accomplishes!

You (or a lawyer representing you) now have 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint. Please let me know if you need extra time to hire a lawyer or file the claim.

 

[Melwin]

Simply make yourself present, which that accomplishes!

You (or a lawyer representing you) now have 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint. Please let me know if you need extra time to hire a lawyer or file the claim.

can we get an ingame trial?

 

[aubunny]

can we get an ingame trial?

Ingame trials happen after the Answer to Complaint is filed (See Court Procedures Rule 7.2) so you would still need to file that on the forums, however. If the Plaintiff agrees (cc. @s6cond) we can do an in-game trial past that point

 

[Melwin]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
AdamTheKing05 (represented by s6cond)
Plaintiff
v.
Melwin20king
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES

Plaintiff: AdamTheKing05 (represented by s6cond)
Defendant: Melwin20king

II. FACTS

On May 26, 2026, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff at a party.
The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a direct message stating "250 or il kill," demanding $250 under explicit threat of death.
The Plaintiff refused the Defendant's unlawful demand.
Following the refusal, the Defendant shot the Plaintiff, carrying out his threat.
The Plaintiff was compelled to respond to protect his life against the Defendant's lethal attack.
Witnesses Ender_2099 and H4LLOWEEN456 were present at the scene and can attest to the Defendant's aggressive and threatening conduct.
Witness H4LLOWEEN456 confirmed that the Defendant attempted to sell illegal items to the Plaintiff, and shot the Plaintiff when he refused to buy them.
Witness Ender_2099 confirmed that the Defendant also attacked him at the same event.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Civil Extortion
The Defendant intentionally and unlawfully attempted to coerce the Plaintiff into delivering funds by instilling an immediate fear of physical injury and death, mirroring the unlawful conduct defined under Section 29(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act.
Battery
The Defendant committed an unlawful physical attack and harmful contact against the Plaintiff by intentionally shooting him with a firearm after the Plaintiff refused to comply with the extortion demand.

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

Award $800 in Compensatory Damages for the physical battery, medical recovery, and time lost dealing with the unprovoked shooting incident;

Award $700 in Consequential Damages under the framework of Section 29(a)(ix) of the Criminal Code Act for the severe disruption to the Plaintiff's safety, calling, and personal relationships at a public event;

Award $500 in Punitive Damages to punish the Defendant's clear malicious intent as evidenced by the explicit threat "250 or il kill," and to deter future unlawful extortion and violence in public spaces;

Grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE
P-001: Direct message screenshot showing the Defendant sending "250 or il kill" to the Plaintiff, demonstrating the extortion threat.
View attachment 83623
P-002: Screenshot showing witnesses Ender_2099 and H4LLOWEEN456 present at the scene alongside the Defendant.
View attachment 83624
P-003: Chat log screenshot showing witness H4LLOWEEN456 stating the Defendant attempted to sell illegal items and shot the Plaintiff upon refusal.
View attachment 83625
P-004: Chat log screenshot showing witness Ender_2099 confirming the Defendant attacked him at the same event.
View attachment 83626
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 26th day of May 2026
s6cond
Counsel for AdamTheKing05

i agree to an ingame trial

 

[s6cond]

On behalf of the Plaintiff, we do not consent to an in-game trial and wish to proceed with a standard forum based trial.

 

[Melwin]

On behalf of the Plaintiff, we do not consent to an in-game trial and wish to proceed with a standard forum based trial.

sure buddy

 

[Melwin]

Simply make yourself present, which that accomplishes!

You (or a lawyer representing you) now have 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint. Please let me know if you need extra time to hire a lawyer or file the claim.

im trying to find a lawyer

 

[Melwin]

i understand my wrong doings during this period of my life. But since then i have changed for the better and gone to university. I did this in desperat time for money and flows and to get higher up in the mafia but ive gotten out. And now working full time with stable job apartment and passport. and i have already served a sentence in prison which spooked me out of these ways. So i hope i have proven myself enough because if this lawsuit goes through i will be in a new dark time in my life. So i hope you understand.

 

[s6cond]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has admitted to commiting these acts deliberately as shown in post #11.

The Defendant has further failed to file a proper Answer to the Complaint within the allotted 48 hours, offering no denial of facts and no legal defence.

Personal improvement does not relive the defendant of the damages caused, nor does it eliminate their responsibility for damages arising from their actions.

s6cond,

Counsel for adamtheking05.

 

[Melwin]

Your Honor,

The Defendant has admitted to commiting these acts deliberately as shown in post #11.

The Defendant has further failed to file a proper Answer to Complaint within the allotted 48 hours, offering no denial of facts and no legal defence.

Personal improvement does not relive the defendant of the damages caused, nor does it eliminate their responsibility for damages arising from his actions.

s6cond,

Counsel for adamtheking05.

i think you took it wrong i plead guilty and im willing to pay

 

[aubunny]

Just to be clear, Is that both sides requesting a summery judgement? That will bring us to verdict skipping the rest of procedure.

 

[Melwin]

Just to be clear, Is that both sides requesting a summery judgement? That will bring us to verdict skipping the rest of procedure.

sure

 

[aubunny]

And does the Prosecution agree to a summery judgement? (@s6cond)

 

[s6cond]

Yes.

 

[aubunny]

Case is in Recess pending verdict. The Court thanks you all for your time.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

AdamTheKing05
Plaintiff

v.

Melwin20king
Defendant

AdamTheKing05 v. Melwin20king [2026] DCR 53

I. Background​

The Plaintiff, AdamTheKing05, represented by counsel s6cond, brings this civil action against the Defendant, Melwin20king, alleging civil extortion and battery arising from an incident on May 26, 2026.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant approached him at a party and sent a direct message stating, “250 or il kill.” The Plaintiff refused the demand. The Defendant then shot the Plaintiff, thereby carrying out the threat. The Plaintiff further alleges that he was compelled to defend his life against the attack and that witnesses observed the Defendant’s aggressive and threatening conduct.

The Defendant has admitted to the operative facts.

II. Legal Analysis​

A. Civil Extortion​

The Plaintiff first claims civil extortion. The Criminal Code Act defines extortion as compelling or inducing another person to deliver funds or property by instilling fear that, if the property is not delivered, the actor will cause physical injury, damage property, or engage in other criminal conduct (see Criminal Code Act, Part VIII, § 14(a)(i)–(iii), Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act). There is no "Civil Extortion" statute that exists, thus we will be applying regular Extortion under the Criminal Code Act.

Here, the Defendant threatened to kill the Plaintiff unless the Plaintiff paid $250. That conduct mirrors the language of criminal extortion. However, the Plaintiff refused the unlawful demand, and no funds or property were delivered. Because the alleged extortion did not result in the transfer of money or property, the Plaintiff was not deprived of any proceeds recoverable under the extortion claim. Accordingly, the claim for civil damages based on extortion fails.

B. Assault​

The Plaintiff’s second claim is styled as battery. Battery is not expressly defined in either the Redmont Civil Code Act or the Criminal Code Act, and the Court is not aware of binding Redmont common law recognizing battery as an independent civil cause of action.

However, because this matter is before the District Court as a civil claim less than $2,500, and because the procedural posture did not allow for discovery or a meaningful amendment of the pleadings, the Court construes the battery claim as a claim for civil damages arising from assault as defined in the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code Act provides that a person commits assault if that person intentionally causes bodily injury to another person or intentionally places another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily injury (see Criminal Code Act, Part IV, § 1(a), Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act). On the admitted facts, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff, threatened to kill him unless he paid $250, and then shot him after the Plaintiff refused. The Defendant’s conduct therefore constitutes assault under the Criminal Code Act.

C. Damages​

The Redmont Civil Code Act permits civil damages to be sought for crimes and allows a plaintiff to pursue civil damages arising from criminal conduct under the Criminal Code (see Redmont Civil Code Act Part II, § 4(2)–(3), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

This case presents a procedural issue regarding the availability of relief in Small Claims Court. The amount originally demanded by the Plaintiff was only $2,000 and as such the claim feel within the limitation of the Small Claims Court. Where the amount in controversy is less than $2,500, the Court may hear the matter under its Small Claims jurisdiction and resolve the dispute in a summary fashion consistent with the interests of justice. (Old Court Rules & Procedure, Rule 2.2(b), Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated]).

The Court also notes, however, a tension within the Redmont Civil Code regarding legal fees. The Civil Code generally contemplates the recovery of legal fees by a prevailing party. In ordinary litigation, such a provision serves to make an injured party whole and to discourage frivolous conduct. In the Small Claims context, however, mandatory fee-shifting creates a practical problem. A claim worth only a few hundred dollars may become a claim worth several thousand dollars solely because of this statutory provision. (see generally Redmont Civil Code Act Part III, § 7, https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/redmont-civil-code-act.34107/). Such a result risks undermining the purpose of Small Claims Court by transforming minor disputes into substantial financial liabilities unrelated to the underlying harm.

This case illustrates that concern and thus the Court therefore proceeds cautiously in assessing damages, recognizing both the availability of Small Claims relief for modest injuries and the need to avoid an interpretation of the Civil Code that would be contrary to law. As such, this Court is going to liberally apply the diminution of award. The Court makes the finding that if the damages granted is well above the 15% of the value of the case, and also makes the finding that counsel's conduct and competence were lackluster given the Court having to hunt to find a claim with which to grant relief. (see Id., § 7(4)(a)-(b)). The Court applies the diminution to the legal fee minimum of $3,000 dollars that is statutorily set by Congress for cases in the DCR. The Court believes that the legal fee granted is still wildly disproportional. However, this is the only way this Court may make the requisite findings in favor of the Plaintiff, based on the claims alleged, that would actually grant them damage, while still following the spirit of the law.

Compensatory damages require proof of pecuniary loss, including harm to property, harm to earning capacity, or the creation of liabilities, unless special damages apply (see Redmont Civil Code Act Part III, § 2(1)(a), § 2(2)(a)–(b), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

Consequential damages may be awarded for otherwise incalculable damages, including humiliation, worsening of conditions, and loss of enjoyment, where proven on the balance of probabilities (see Redmont Civil Code Act Part III,§ 5(1)(a)–(b), § 5(2)(a), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

Punitive damages may be awarded where the defendant’s conduct is outrageous, including where the defendant intended to cause harm, acted knowing harm was likely, or acted with reckless indifference to whether harm would occur (see Redmont Civil Code Act Part III, § 3(1)(a), § 3(2)(a)–(b), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

The Defendant’s conduct was deliberate, threatening, and violent. The Defendant threatened the Plaintiff’s life, attempted to coerce payment through that threat, and then shot the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff refused. However, this Court cannot find that the actions taken here did result in proof of pecuniary loss. Additionally, this Court cannot find that, on a balance of probabilities, that being shot resulted in any consequential damages whatsoever. The one finding that this Court is able to make is that the Defendant, in engaging in this behavior, acted knowingly that their conduct was likely to seriously inconvenience the Plaintiff. Thus this Court will find punitive damages on the assault claim alone.

III. Decision​

In the matter of [2026] DCR 53, this court rules in favor of the Plaintiff and orders:

1. $100 dollars in punitive damages to the Plaintiff paid by the Defendant.
2. $2,400 dollars in legal fees to the Plaintiff’s lawyer paid by the Defendant.

So ordered.