Lawsuit: Pending kisskissy v. stellar_night [2026] DCR 84

MaxvEtten

MaxvEtten

Citizen
MaxvEtten
MaxvEtten
Attorney
Joined
Jun 3, 2026
Messages
23

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


kisskissy
Plaintiff

v.

stellar_night
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

At approximately 17:30 on the 9th of June, the Defendant, stellar_night, intentionally murderd and commited theft on the Plaintiff, kisskissy, without any consent, the incident took place in Aventura, after the Plaintiff respawned and went back to Aventura, he saw the stolen fish being sold to 'Larry The Fisher'.

I. PARTIES

1. kisskissy, Plaintiff
2. stellar_night, Defendant
3. MaxvEtten, legal representative for Plaintiff (Proof below)

II. FACTS

1. At 17:30 on June 9th, the Plaintiff was fishing in Aventura.
2. The Plaintiff was only wearing iron boots.
3. Immediately prior to the murder, the Plaintiff was placing fish into a bundle. Upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish.
4. The Defendant intentionally atackted the Plaintiff once with a combat knife, resulting in the Plaintiff being murderd.
5. There was no consent, provocation or legal self defense whatsoever, allowing the Defendant to atack the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff died, and dropped a bundle worth about $350.
7. After respawning, the Plaintiff travelled back to Aventura, and saw the Defendant selling the bundle containing the fish to 'Larry The Fisher'
8. The Plaintiff told the Defendant to return bundle, which was completly ignored.
9. By refusing to return the bundle after being informed that it belonged to the Plaintiff, the Defendant demonstrated an intent to permanently deprive the Plaintiff of their property.
10. The Defendant's actions caused harm to the Plaintiff, and created a valid case for civil damages arising from criminal conduct.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


Claim I: Theft
1. According to the Criminal Code Act, when a player takes property belonging to another without consent and intends to permanently deprive the owner of it, it falls under Theft.
2. The Defendant's conduct satisfies this definition because the Defendant took possession of the Plaintiff's bundle after the Plaintiff's death, retained it despite the Plaintiff's request for its return, and subsequently sold its contents for personal gain.
3. Since the incident happend in Aventura, the wilderness exception does NOT apply.
4. Under Redmont law, crimes may be used to seek civil damages, and civil proceedings may proceed independently of any criminal prosecution.

Claim II: Murder
1. According to the Criminal Code Act, when a player unlawfully kills another player, it falls under Murder.
2. The Defendant’s conduct satisfies this definition because the Defendant deliberately murderd the Plaintiff with a Combat knife without legal justification
3. Since the murder happend in Aventura, the wilderness exception does NOT apply.
4. Under Redmont law, crimes may be used to seek civil damages, and civil proceedings may proceed independently of any criminal prosecution.

Claim III: Compensatory Damages
1. The Plaintiff seeks Compensatory Damages, in the amount of $350 for the value of the stolen property.

Claim IV: Nominal Damages arising from Theft
1. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages because the Defendant's theft violated the Plaintiff's property rights beyond the direct financial loss suffered.
2. The Plaintiff seeks $2,500 in nominal damages. This amount is based on the severity of the Defendant's conduct. The Defendant intentionally and unlawfully stole property belonging to the Plaintiff without consent or legal justification. The Defendant's actions deprived the Plaintiff of their lawful property and violated the Plaintiff's property rights. The requested sum is intended to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss suffered and to deter similar conduct in the future.

Claim V: Nominal Damages arising from Murder
1. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages because the Defendant’s unlawful conduct violated the Plaintiff’s rights, even if the Plaintiff does not claim a larger proven financial loss.
2. The Plaintiff seeks $2,500 in nominal damages. This amount is based on the severity of the Defendant's conduct. The Defendant murderd the Plaintiff without provocation or consent using an combat knife, while the Plaintiff was only wearing Iron Boots. The attack was deliberate and unprovoked. The requested sum is intended to compensate for the seriousness of the murder and to deter similar conduct in the future.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5,350, consisting of:
a. $350 in Compensatory Damages
b. $2,500 in Nominal Damages arising from Theft
c. $2,500 in Nominal Damages arising from Murder
2. Any applicable legal fees awarded to the prevailing party.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

1781025523856.png


1781025549038.png


1781025708393.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 9th day of June 2026

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons



@Stellar_Night is commanded to appear before the District Court in kisskissy v. Stellar_Night [2026] DCR XX


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.

 
I would like to schedule this for Monday june 22nd because i will not be able to adhere to this law suit until then. Please understand that i will be unable to review the following accusations and that this be settled on the date provided. I will not be connected to the internet starting on june 13th.
 
I am sorry for not being able to respond sooner. Hopefully we can deal with this altercation at the date that is being suggested as long as it adheres to the Plaintiffs schedule and availability.
 
Your Honor,
The Plaintiff has no objection to the Defendant's request for a continuance and respectfully consents to the requested extension.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for Default Judgement against the Defendant.

On the 11th of June the Defendant was summoned to court, the Defendant pointed out that he would not be available for a few weeks, and asked for a continuance, the Plaintiff agreed, and the set date the case would continue was the 22nd of June.

It has now been 3 days since the Defendant said he would be present, and he still has not showed up at all.

The Plaintiff moves for default judgement, and respectfully asks the court to grant the full $5,350, and any legal fees or other relief the court may find just and proper.

DATED: This 25th day of June, 2026

 
I was here the first day on the 21st I forgot to respond and continued on no message has been put in to significantly open the case to my attention when I got back.
 
Also, I ask of the representative of the plantiff and of the plantiff then selves if they have any evidence or way to signify that what happened really happened and of any signifying proof.
 
MaxvEtten said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honor

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for Default Judgement against the Defendant.

On the 11th of June the Defendant was summoned to court, the Defendant pointed out that he would not be available for a few weeks, and asked for a continuance, the Plaintiff agreed, and the set date the case would continue was the 22nd of June.

It has now been 3 days since the Defendant said he would be present, and he still has not showed up at all.

The Plaintiff moves for default judgement, and respectfully asks the court to grant the full $5,350, and any legal fees or other relief the court may find just and proper.

DATED: This 25th day of June, 2026

Click to expand...

DENIED.

@TheSnowGuardian Please prepare an Answer within 48 hours.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

kisskissy
Plaintiff

v.

stellar_night
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The Defendant DENIES every fact listed.

II. DEFENCES

1. Theft​

A. Nominal Damages for Theft Not Applicable​


i. LAW​

Nominal Damages may be claimed when the Plaintiff “is not entitled to any other damages”. RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a).

ii. PLEADING​

The Defence (“we”) pleads that the Nominal Damages for Theft are not applicable as the Plaintiff has already established a separate claim for Theft. Complaint, Claim III.

iii. PRECEDENT​

This Hnble. Court found, in a previous lawsuit, that “for Nominal [Damages], … the use of Nominal damages [is] invalid as they are only granted in the instance that the party is not entitled to any other damages” where the Plaintiff had “list[ed] two other damages, with reasoning supporting why these damages should be granted by the Court. Showing potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case.” [2026] DCR 52, Post #17.

Similarly, the claim of Nominal Damages was dismissed in [2026] DCR 65 and [2026] DCR 77.

Horizontal Precedent on this matter, as well as statute, all very clearly point towards the fact that this claim has no basis.

B. Alleged Facts Do Not Constitute Theft Under Statute​


i. FACTS​


The Plaintiff, in their complaint, alleged that the Plaintiff “upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish.“ Complaint, Fact 3.

When we consulted with Staff, we discovered that this wasn’t possible without the Plaintiff voluntarily dropping the bundle that they allege the Defendant took. (D-001)

ii. LAW​


The Criminal Offence of Theft does not occur where the Plaintiff has abandoned the property. CCA, Part VIII, §9(d)

iii. PLEADING​


Even if the Plaintiff proves the bundle existed, and that the Defendant took it, the Plaintiff willingly dropped this bundle and has made no demonstrations otherwise that the bundle wasn’t dropped automatically, though the Plaintiff infers so. See Complaint Fact 3(“Upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish.”). See also Complaint Fact 6(“The Plaintiff died, and dropped a bundle worth about $350.”)

Additionally, as the staff have confirmed, with Keep Inventory, the Plaintiff would have had to drop the bundle. Thus, the Plaintiff abandoned their property that the Defendant allegedly took.

The Defence will demonstrate that the Plaintiff would have willfully dropped the item, based on the facts alleged. (infra) This implies the Plaintiff willfully dropped the bundle and thus abandoned their property, leaving it open for others to claim.

C. Factual Error​


The Plaintiff alleges that “upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish”, which cannot be true.

Upon death, the Plaintiff would have been teleported elsewhere. This means that the Plaintiff could not have dropped the bundle after their death automatically, as Keep Inventory was turned on (D-001).


2. Murder​


A. Lack of Evidence​


The Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of Murder. This applies equally to the alleged theft. The Defence chooses not to address this claim at the moment.

B. Exaggerated Nominal Damages​


i. FACTS​


The Plaintiff claims 2500$ for a single count of alleged murder. This is an approximate FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE Percent increase for the fine of Murder in the CCA. CCA, Part IV, §3.

ii. LAW​


Nominal damages “are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages”. RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a), emphasis mine.

iii. QUESTION OF LAW​


Whether an exaggerated amount can be considered a “trivial sum of money”.

iv. PLEADINGS​


The Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant murderd the Plaintiff without provocation or consent using an combat knife” without any evidence (supra) and that the alleged “attack was deliberate and unprovoked”, Complaint, Claim V.

However, this Hnble. Court found that murders “on their own are little more than a momentary time-waster. While certainly annoying, the State is more than capable of dealing with it themselves.” [2026] DCR 59.

A (rounded off) figure of almost a 600% increase in what the Commonwealth fines its citizens for a Criminal Act that does little to harm someone is definitely anything but a “trivial” amount.

To the best of Defence Counsel’s ability, I have not been able to find applicable precedent governing this matter. However, the word ‘trivial’ is very important and thus, a question of law arises.

v. CERTIFIED QUESTION REQUEST​


The law empowers a party to request a question of law to be referred to an appellate authority. JSA, Part IX, §2(1). Thus, the Defence requests and writes an application.

a) Legal Question to Be Answered

Whether an exaggerated amount can be considered a “trivial sum of money”.

b) Cause of Unsettled matter
The Defence, having not been able to find applicable precedent (and thus assumes a lack thereof) governing this matter, poses a certified question to the Court as mentioned supra in Subsection B.v.a)

c) Summary of Legal Facts
Plaintiff pleads for nominal damages of 2500$ based on an alleged murder and conduct alleged to have taken place during the murder.
Defence opposes the amount as it pleaded not to be “trivial” by nature, as required by RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a).

C. Reasoning for Nominal Damages Not Appropriate​


As mentioned supra, nominal damages may be awarded for “recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss”

The concluding reason that Plaintiff claims is that
this amount is based on the severity of the Defendant's conduct. The Defendant murderd the Plaintiff without provocation or consent using an combat knife, while the Plaintiff was only wearing Iron Boots. The attack was deliberate and unprovoked. The requested sum is intended to compensate for the seriousness of the murder and to deter similar conduct in the future.
Click to expand...

This is wholly overzealous for causes for which Nominal Damages should be awarded, and does not match its criteria. Nominal Damages are not awarded to “deter .. conduct”. They are a recognition of a cause of legal action, one which the Plaintiff fails to make and prove on evidentiary standards.

3. Compensatory Damages​


A. Lack of Evidence (#2)​


Compensatory damages are restoration of what one has lost and are not awarded without proof of pecuniary harm. RCCA, Part III, §2.

The Plaintiff has failed to show any evidence and, notably, does not have any exhibits.

4. Conclusion​


The Plaintiff has filed a suit with no evidence, with little standing, and has asked for an egregious amount of money. The Defence believes that this lawsuit should not enter Trial.
1782598266497.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 28th day of June 2026

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

kisskissy
Plaintiff

v.

stellar_night
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The Defendant DENIES every fact listed.

II. DEFENCES

Answer to Complaint


1. Theft​

A. Nominal Damages for Theft Not Applicable​


i. LAW​

Nominal Damages may be claimed when the Plaintiff “is not entitled to any other damages”. RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a).

ii. PLEADING​

The Defence (“we”) pleads that the Nominal Damages for Theft are not applicable as the Plaintiff has already established a separate claim for Theft. Complaint, Claim III.

iii. PRECEDENT​

This Hnble. Court found, in a previous lawsuit, that “for Nominal [Damages], … the use of Nominal damages [is] invalid as they are only granted in the instance that the party is not entitled to any other damages” where the Plaintiff had “list[ed] two other damages, with reasoning supporting why these damages should be granted by the Court. Showing potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case.” [2026] DCR 52, Post #17.

Similarly, the claim of Nominal Damages was dismissed in [2026] DCR 65 and [2026] DCR 77.

Horizontal Precedent on this matter, as well as statute, all very clearly point towards the fact that this claim has no basis.

B. Alleged Facts Do Not Constitute Theft Under Statute​


i. FACTS​


The Plaintiff, in their complaint, alleged that the Plaintiff “upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish.“ Complaint, Fact 3.

When we consulted with Staff, we discovered that this wasn’t possible without the Plaintiff voluntarily dropping the bundle that they allege the Defendant took. (D-001)

ii. LAW​


The Criminal Offence of Theft does not occur where the Plaintiff has abandoned the property. CCA, Part VIII, §9(d)

iii. PLEADING​


Even if the Plaintiff proves the bundle existed, and that the Defendant took it, the Plaintiff willingly dropped this bundle and has made no demonstrations otherwise that the bundle wasn’t dropped automatically, though the Plaintiff infers so. See Complaint Fact 3(“Upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish.”). See also Complaint Fact 6(“The Plaintiff died, and dropped a bundle worth about $350.”)

Additionally, as the staff have confirmed, with Keep Inventory, the Plaintiff would have had to drop the bundle. Thus, the Plaintiff abandoned their property that the Defendant allegedly took.

The Defence will demonstrate that the Plaintiff would have willfully dropped the item, based on the facts alleged. (infra) This implies the Plaintiff willfully dropped the bundle and thus abandoned their property, leaving it open for others to claim.

C. Factual Error​


The Plaintiff alleges that “upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish”, which cannot be true.

Upon death, the Plaintiff would have been teleported elsewhere. This means that the Plaintiff could not have dropped the bundle after their death automatically, as Keep Inventory was turned on (D-001).


2. Murder​


A. Lack of Evidence​


The Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of Murder. This applies equally to the alleged theft. The Defence chooses not to address this claim at the moment.

B. Exaggerated Nominal Damages​


i. FACTS​


The Plaintiff claims 2500$ for a single count of alleged murder. This is an approximate FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE Percent increase for the fine of Murder in the CCA. CCA, Part IV, §3.

ii. LAW​


Nominal damages “are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages”. RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a), emphasis mine.

iii. QUESTION OF LAW​


Whether an exaggerated amount can be considered a “trivial sum of money”.

iv. PLEADINGS​


The Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant murderd the Plaintiff without provocation or consent using an combat knife” without any evidence (supra) and that the alleged “attack was deliberate and unprovoked”, Complaint, Claim V.

However, this Hnble. Court found that murders “on their own are little more than a momentary time-waster. While certainly annoying, the State is more than capable of dealing with it themselves.” [2026] DCR 59.

A (rounded off) figure of almost a 600% increase in what the Commonwealth fines its citizens for a Criminal Act that does little to harm someone is definitely anything but a “trivial” amount.

To the best of Defence Counsel’s ability, I have not been able to find applicable precedent governing this matter. However, the word ‘trivial’ is very important and thus, a question of law arises.

v. CERTIFIED QUESTION REQUEST​


The law empowers a party to request a question of law to be referred to an appellate authority. JSA, Part IX, §2(1). Thus, the Defence requests and writes an application.

a) Legal Question to Be Answered

Whether an exaggerated amount can be considered a “trivial sum of money”.

b) Cause of Unsettled matter
The Defence, having not been able to find applicable precedent (and thus assumes a lack thereof) governing this matter, poses a certified question to the Court as mentioned supra in Subsection B.v.a)

c) Summary of Legal Facts
Plaintiff pleads for nominal damages of 2500$ based on an alleged murder and conduct alleged to have taken place during the murder.
Defence opposes the amount as it pleaded not to be “trivial” by nature, as required by RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a).

C. Reasoning for Nominal Damages Not Appropriate​


As mentioned supra, nominal damages may be awarded for “recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss”

The concluding reason that Plaintiff claims is that


This is wholly overzealous for causes for which Nominal Damages should be awarded, and does not match its criteria. Nominal Damages are not awarded to “deter .. conduct”. They are a recognition of a cause of legal action, one which the Plaintiff fails to make and prove on evidentiary standards.

3. Compensatory Damages​


A. Lack of Evidence (#2)​


Compensatory damages are restoration of what one has lost and are not awarded without proof of pecuniary harm. RCCA, Part III, §2.

The Plaintiff has failed to show any evidence and, notably, does not have any exhibits.

4. Conclusion​


The Plaintiff has filed a suit with no evidence, with little standing, and has asked for an egregious amount of money. The Defence believes that this lawsuit should not enter Trial.
View attachment 87904


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 28th day of June 2026

Click to expand...

TheSnowGuardian said:

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

kisskissy
Plaintiff

v.

stellar_night
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The Defendant DENIES every fact listed.

II. DEFENCES

Answer to Complaint


1. Theft​

A. Nominal Damages for Theft Not Applicable​


i. LAW​

Nominal Damages may be claimed when the Plaintiff “is not entitled to any other damages”. RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a).

ii. PLEADING​

The Defence (“we”) pleads that the Nominal Damages for Theft are not applicable as the Plaintiff has already established a separate claim for Theft. Complaint, Claim III.

iii. PRECEDENT​

This Hnble. Court found, in a previous lawsuit, that “for Nominal [Damages], … the use of Nominal damages [is] invalid as they are only granted in the instance that the party is not entitled to any other damages” where the Plaintiff had “list[ed] two other damages, with reasoning supporting why these damages should be granted by the Court. Showing potential entitlement to other damages through the course of this case.” [2026] DCR 52, Post #17.

Similarly, the claim of Nominal Damages was dismissed in [2026] DCR 65 and [2026] DCR 77.

Horizontal Precedent on this matter, as well as statute, all very clearly point towards the fact that this claim has no basis.

B. Alleged Facts Do Not Constitute Theft Under Statute​


i. FACTS​


The Plaintiff, in their complaint, alleged that the Plaintiff “upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish.“ Complaint, Fact 3.

When we consulted with Staff, we discovered that this wasn’t possible without the Plaintiff voluntarily dropping the bundle that they allege the Defendant took. (D-001)

ii. LAW​


The Criminal Offence of Theft does not occur where the Plaintiff has abandoned the property. CCA, Part VIII, §9(d)

iii. PLEADING​


Even if the Plaintiff proves the bundle existed, and that the Defendant took it, the Plaintiff willingly dropped this bundle and has made no demonstrations otherwise that the bundle wasn’t dropped automatically, though the Plaintiff infers so. See Complaint Fact 3(“Upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish.”). See also Complaint Fact 6(“The Plaintiff died, and dropped a bundle worth about $350.”)

Additionally, as the staff have confirmed, with Keep Inventory, the Plaintiff would have had to drop the bundle. Thus, the Plaintiff abandoned their property that the Defendant allegedly took.

The Defence will demonstrate that the Plaintiff would have willfully dropped the item, based on the facts alleged. (infra) This implies the Plaintiff willfully dropped the bundle and thus abandoned their property, leaving it open for others to claim.

C. Factual Error​


The Plaintiff alleges that “upon death, the Plaintiff dropped the bundle containing the fish”, which cannot be true.

Upon death, the Plaintiff would have been teleported elsewhere. This means that the Plaintiff could not have dropped the bundle after their death automatically, as Keep Inventory was turned on (D-001).


2. Murder​


A. Lack of Evidence​


The Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of Murder. This applies equally to the alleged theft. The Defence chooses not to address this claim at the moment.

B. Exaggerated Nominal Damages​


i. FACTS​


The Plaintiff claims 2500$ for a single count of alleged murder. This is an approximate FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE Percent increase for the fine of Murder in the CCA. CCA, Part IV, §3.

ii. LAW​


Nominal damages “are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages”. RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a), emphasis mine.

iii. QUESTION OF LAW​


Whether an exaggerated amount can be considered a “trivial sum of money”.

iv. PLEADINGS​


The Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant murderd the Plaintiff without provocation or consent using an combat knife” without any evidence (supra) and that the alleged “attack was deliberate and unprovoked”, Complaint, Claim V.

However, this Hnble. Court found that murders “on their own are little more than a momentary time-waster. While certainly annoying, the State is more than capable of dealing with it themselves.” [2026] DCR 59.

A (rounded off) figure of almost a 600% increase in what the Commonwealth fines its citizens for a Criminal Act that does little to harm someone is definitely anything but a “trivial” amount.

To the best of Defence Counsel’s ability, I have not been able to find applicable precedent governing this matter. However, the word ‘trivial’ is very important and thus, a question of law arises.

v. CERTIFIED QUESTION REQUEST​


The law empowers a party to request a question of law to be referred to an appellate authority. JSA, Part IX, §2(1). Thus, the Defence requests and writes an application.

a) Legal Question to Be Answered

Whether an exaggerated amount can be considered a “trivial sum of money”.

b) Cause of Unsettled matter
The Defence, having not been able to find applicable precedent (and thus assumes a lack thereof) governing this matter, poses a certified question to the Court as mentioned supra in Subsection B.v.a)

c) Summary of Legal Facts
Plaintiff pleads for nominal damages of 2500$ based on an alleged murder and conduct alleged to have taken place during the murder.
Defence opposes the amount as it pleaded not to be “trivial” by nature, as required by RCCA, Part III, §4(1)(a).

C. Reasoning for Nominal Damages Not Appropriate​


As mentioned supra, nominal damages may be awarded for “recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss”

The concluding reason that Plaintiff claims is that


This is wholly overzealous for causes for which Nominal Damages should be awarded, and does not match its criteria. Nominal Damages are not awarded to “deter .. conduct”. They are a recognition of a cause of legal action, one which the Plaintiff fails to make and prove on evidentiary standards.

3. Compensatory Damages​


A. Lack of Evidence (#2)​


Compensatory damages are restoration of what one has lost and are not awarded without proof of pecuniary harm. RCCA, Part III, §2.

The Plaintiff has failed to show any evidence and, notably, does not have any exhibits.

4. Conclusion​


The Plaintiff has filed a suit with no evidence, with little standing, and has asked for an egregious amount of money. The Defence believes that this lawsuit should not enter Trial.
View attachment 87904


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 28th day of June 2026

Click to expand...
The bundle was dropped because I was holding it in my inventory while putting the fish in. (can someone tell me where i can appeal myself? pls)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour, the Plaintiff has spoken out of turn. We ask that his statement be struck and that he be warned about the pain of contempt.

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour, the Plaintiff has spoken out of turn. We ask that his statement be struck and that he be warned about the pain of contempt.

Click to expand...

Sustained. The offending post is struck.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DEFENCE'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

Your Honour, the Defence submits:

See Attached 'd-textlogs.pdf'

IMG_20260630_082936756_HDR.jpg

in Discovery submissions pursuant to Court Rule 4.6.

 

Attachments

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL
Your Honour, the Defence moves that the Plaintiff submit:

(i) the text log of the session(s) in which the Plaintiff is alleged to have been killed by the Defendant, and is alleged to have occurred when the bundle dropped

Reasoning: The Defence should be able to inspect the incident, noting that the Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence, to verify the truth of the facts that have been alleged against the Defendant.

 

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted before the end of discovery. See Rule 5.2

Your Honour, the Defence moves that the Court dismiss this lawsuit under Rule 5.5, and 5.13.
A. Rule 5.5: Lack of Claim

A Motion to Dismiss under this rule can be filed “against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge in any circumstance.” Rule 5.5.
The Plaintiff has failed to provide any exhibits or evidence supporting their claim(s).
Thus, the Defence moves that all claims of relief be dismissed for lack of claim.

B. Rule 5.13: Failure to Provide Discovery
A Motion to Dismiss when the Plaintiff violates the rules for discovery and fails to provide discovery rules as mandated by Rule 4 and all subsections. Rule 5.13.

Interrogatories must be responded to within 48 hours of being asked. Rule 4.8
The Plaintiff has failed to respond to the interrogatories made in #20 and #25.

The Plaintiff’s Counsel, TheSnowGuardian, seeks the minimum of 3000$ in legal fees should this action be dismissed.



cc: @Muggy21 @MaxvEtten @kisskissy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top