- Joined
- Jun 10, 2021
- Messages
- 35
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Catfriedrice
Plaintiff
v.
The Department of Justice
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On the evening of June 15 2021, at around 11:15 PM CST, The plaintiff was at her house in Hamilton (plot r-77), when she was killed by an explosive. She also recieved an alert in the chat that player Mincraft (the name of a player) had killed her, and Police officer antatro asked if the kill was consented, the plaintiff responded no. Then Deekade1004, another Police Officer asked the same question, and before the plaintiff could respond, she saw the attacker in her house again, due to the house being in progress there were possibilities for tresspassing as there were holes in the house. Mincraft attacked her again and the plaintiff ended up killing Mincraft in self defense. Mincraft killed Catfriedrice a second time during the process. Officer antatro said that chat logs stated that she somehow started the fight. . It is possible that the plaintiff did more damage to the attacker than vice versa but the kill committed by the plaintiff was an act of self defense, not agression. Mincraft was never punished.
I. PARTIES
1. Catfriedrice-Plaintiff
2. antatro -Arresting officer
3. Deekade1004- Other officer on the case
4. Department of Justice- Defendant
5. Mincraft- The attacker
II. FACTS
1. The Attacker(Mincraft) attacked and killed the plaintiff(Catfriedrice) in the home of Catfriedrice(r-77) while also committing trespassing by invading the home
2. The police officers acknowledged the attack and in exhibit 1 and exhibit 2 there is clear evidence the plaintiff was killed by Mincraft
3. The plaintiff then killed Mincraft in self defense after Minecraft invaded their house and was unfairly fined 100$ and jailed for 10 minutes
4. As shown in exhibit 3 Antatro seemed to say that Catfriedrice was attacked and that Mincraft did invade the house, but that the plugin said that catfriedrice murdered, so they had to be arrested.
5. The Department of Justice should have not arrested Catfriedrice due to her only having killed in self defense, yet officer Antatro said that she had to be arrested because no matter what, she committed murderer. As the highlighted statement by antatro in exhibit 3 shows, the officer thought that there was a glitch but that he still had to follow protocol. This is unfair because Catfriedrice had a right to protect herself.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The facts show that Catfriedrice was attacked first and only killed in self-defense, therefore she did not break the law
2. There seems to have been a misunderstanding with a trainee officer, but either way Catfriedrice should not have been arrested
3. The Department of Justice is responsible for the behavior of its officers and how it fines and arrests citizens, and in a case of wrongful arrest the department should compensate the arrested citizen fairly
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. That the 100 dollars be returned to the plaintiff by the Department of Justice, as they were unfairly fined that amount
2. The unfair arrest deleted from their criminal record
3. 500$ from the department of justice to cover legal fees
The referenced evidence is below:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Evidence 3:
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: The 24th of June 2021
CIVIL ACTION
Catfriedrice
Plaintiff
v.
The Department of Justice
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On the evening of June 15 2021, at around 11:15 PM CST, The plaintiff was at her house in Hamilton (plot r-77), when she was killed by an explosive. She also recieved an alert in the chat that player Mincraft (the name of a player) had killed her, and Police officer antatro asked if the kill was consented, the plaintiff responded no. Then Deekade1004, another Police Officer asked the same question, and before the plaintiff could respond, she saw the attacker in her house again, due to the house being in progress there were possibilities for tresspassing as there were holes in the house. Mincraft attacked her again and the plaintiff ended up killing Mincraft in self defense. Mincraft killed Catfriedrice a second time during the process. Officer antatro said that chat logs stated that she somehow started the fight. . It is possible that the plaintiff did more damage to the attacker than vice versa but the kill committed by the plaintiff was an act of self defense, not agression. Mincraft was never punished.
I. PARTIES
1. Catfriedrice-Plaintiff
2. antatro -Arresting officer
3. Deekade1004- Other officer on the case
4. Department of Justice- Defendant
5. Mincraft- The attacker
II. FACTS
1. The Attacker(Mincraft) attacked and killed the plaintiff(Catfriedrice) in the home of Catfriedrice(r-77) while also committing trespassing by invading the home
2. The police officers acknowledged the attack and in exhibit 1 and exhibit 2 there is clear evidence the plaintiff was killed by Mincraft
3. The plaintiff then killed Mincraft in self defense after Minecraft invaded their house and was unfairly fined 100$ and jailed for 10 minutes
4. As shown in exhibit 3 Antatro seemed to say that Catfriedrice was attacked and that Mincraft did invade the house, but that the plugin said that catfriedrice murdered, so they had to be arrested.
5. The Department of Justice should have not arrested Catfriedrice due to her only having killed in self defense, yet officer Antatro said that she had to be arrested because no matter what, she committed murderer. As the highlighted statement by antatro in exhibit 3 shows, the officer thought that there was a glitch but that he still had to follow protocol. This is unfair because Catfriedrice had a right to protect herself.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The facts show that Catfriedrice was attacked first and only killed in self-defense, therefore she did not break the law
2. There seems to have been a misunderstanding with a trainee officer, but either way Catfriedrice should not have been arrested
3. The Department of Justice is responsible for the behavior of its officers and how it fines and arrests citizens, and in a case of wrongful arrest the department should compensate the arrested citizen fairly
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. That the 100 dollars be returned to the plaintiff by the Department of Justice, as they were unfairly fined that amount
2. The unfair arrest deleted from their criminal record
3. 500$ from the department of justice to cover legal fees
The referenced evidence is below:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Evidence 3:
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: The 24th of June 2021