Lawsuit: In Session Korromf v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 116

N

normanninjakids

Citizen
Normanninjakids
Normanninjakids
Attorney
Joined
May 28, 2026
Messages
7

Case Filing​


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Korromf (represented by NormanNinjaKids)
Plaintiff


v.


Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Defendant


COMPLAINT​


The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​



Today, I was sent to jail by paper_cute, I was wondering around since I have never been in jail before and found a hole in the ground and got stuck inside with no way out. The ground, jail, and island is owned by the government and the DHS sends prisoners here which they neglected the fact that the hole exists. Which neglects mine nad others safety for those walking around. Included to that, there was NO food or drinks to be found and I was starving to death while in a DHS owned prison, which set me up for failure since I was already stuck in the hole and dying slowly and painfully. Once again, the DHS neglects my safety as a prisoner. ALSO, I found that there is high ledges with no fences or gates that people can fall off of BREAK THEIR OWN ANKLES from a structuring fault on the prison the DHS owns.I've been suffering loss of enjoyment after the incident, even being scared to walk on grass since i got stuck in a hole around grass because I am afraid i will get stuck and die from hunger or worse an ankle injury. The situation was annoying and what's worse is the humilation i was subjected to when a staff member said "rip" whenever i needed help!
Click to expand...




I. PARTIES​


  1. The Plaintiff, Korromf, is a resident of Redmont and was incarcerated in a correctional facility operated by the Defendant at the time of the events described herein.
  2. The Plaintiff is represented in this matter by NormanNinjaKids.
    Screenshot 2026-06-19 235618.png
  3. The Defendant, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is a government agency responsible for the operation and administration of correctional facilities within Redmont.

II. FACTS​


  1. On 19th june, the Plaintiff was lawfully incarcerated in a correctional facility operated by the Defendant.
  2. During the period of incarceration, the Plaintiff became trapped in a hole within the prison and was unable to escape through any reasonable means (as shown from the screenshot below)
  3. The Plaintiff repeatedly requested assistance from staff and members of the department of homeland security through the chat
  4. A government official responded to the Plaintiff's requests with the statement "rip" but did not provide assistance or take action to free the Plaintiff.
  5. The Plaintiff remained trapped for approximately one hour and was unable to access food, leave the hole, or otherwise care for himself.
  6. During this period, the Plaintiff suffered severe hunger, starvation, distress, and was placed at risk of death due to his inability to escape.
  7. Despite being aware of the Plaintiff's situation, the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to assist him.
  8. The Plaintiff was eventually died after enduring close to one hour of confinement within the hole.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​


  1. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care while the Plaintiff was incarcerated in a correctional facility under the Defendant's control.
  2. The Defendant breached that duty by failing to maintain reasonably safe prison conditions and by failing to provide assistance after being notified of the Plaintiff's situation.
  3. The Defendant's failure to act after becoming aware of the Plaintiff's circumstances constitutes negligence.
  4. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff suffered starvation, distress, and other damages.
  5. The Defendant's actions and omissions failed to meet the standard of care expected of a government agency responsible for the custody and welfare of incarcerated individuals.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​


The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:


  1. A finding that the Defendant acted negligently.
  2. Monetary damages in the amount of $40,000 for loss of enjoyment of gameplay.
  3. Nominal damages for deprivation of food and basic necessities while in custody.
  4. Court costs and any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
  5. Any other relief available under Redmont law.

V. EVIDENCE​


  1. Screenshots of the Plaintiff trapped in the hole (as shown in the screenshot below)
    image.webp
  2. Screenshot showing requests for assistance and Screenshot showing the government official's response of "rip." . (as shown in the screenshot below)
    image (2).webp
  3. screenshot of the Plaintiff dying of starvation and on the brink of death
    image (1).webp

​



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 20 day of may, 2026
 

Attachments

  • image (2).webp
    image (2).webp
    17.9 KB · Views: 20

Writ of Summons



Attorney General @AmityBlamity (or another individual legally qualified to represent the Commonwealth) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Korromf v. Department of Homeland Security.

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.

 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,
Plaintiff's evidence titled "2. Screenshot showing requests for assistance and Screenshot showing the government official's response of "rip." . (as shown in the screenshot below)" (hereinafter "P-002") shows an editable text log.

Rule 4.6 of the Court Rules & Procedures provides for the submission of evidence in discovery and when filing a case. Editable text logs are expressly inadmissable under this rule, unless corroborated by a secondary source.

In this case, there is no secondary source to corroborate P-002, therefore Defendant moves to strike.

 

Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss prayer no. 3 under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Nominal Damages Are Granted Only If No Other Damages Are Awarded​

Nominal Damages are defined as 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." (Part III § 4(1)(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act)

The lower courts have understood this as to mean that nominal damages may only be awarded if no other damages are requested (see, e. g., [2026] DCR 52). Defendant asks that the Court adopts a similiar line of reasoning and dismiss the third prayer.

2. Awarding Nominal Damages Would Constitute Double Recovery​

Plaintiff requests Nominal Damages for "for deprivation of food and basic necessities while in custody," whilst also requesting Consequential Damages (atleast that's what Defendant assumes Plaintiff meant by "Monetary damages") for loss of enjoyment.

Double Recovery is defined as "receiving compensation for the same loss more than once and is prohibited [the RCCA]." (Part II § 7(13) of the RCCA).

The set of facts the claims for Nominal and Consequential Damages are derived from is the same, meaning that the alleged loss is the same. This fulfills the definition of double recovery, as Plaintiff would receive compensation twice for the same loss.

3. Conclusion​

Defendant respectfully requests that the third prayer for relief is struck.

 
Johnes said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,
Plaintiff's evidence titled "2. Screenshot showing requests for assistance and Screenshot showing the government official's response of "rip." . (as shown in the screenshot below)" (hereinafter "P-002") shows an editable text log.

Rule 4.6 of the Court Rules & Procedures provides for the submission of evidence in discovery and when filing a case. Editable text logs are expressly inadmissable under this rule, unless corroborated by a secondary source.

In this case, there is no secondary source to corroborate P-002, therefore Defendant moves to strike.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

Staff have decided that chat logs are presumed accurate unless disputed.
 
Johnes said:

Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss prayer no. 3 under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Nominal Damages Are Granted Only If No Other Damages Are Awarded​

Nominal Damages are defined as 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." (Part III § 4(1)(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act)

The lower courts have understood this as to mean that nominal damages may only be awarded if no other damages are requested (see, e. g., [2026] DCR 52). Defendant asks that the Court adopts a similiar line of reasoning and dismiss the third prayer.

2. Awarding Nominal Damages Would Constitute Double Recovery​

Plaintiff requests Nominal Damages for "for deprivation of food and basic necessities while in custody," whilst also requesting Consequential Damages (atleast that's what Defendant assumes Plaintiff meant by "Monetary damages") for loss of enjoyment.

Double Recovery is defined as "receiving compensation for the same loss more than once and is prohibited [the RCCA]." (Part II § 7(13) of the RCCA).

The set of facts the claims for Nominal and Consequential Damages are derived from is the same, meaning that the alleged loss is the same. This fulfills the definition of double recovery, as Plaintiff would receive compensation twice for the same loss.

3. Conclusion​

Defendant respectfully requests that the third prayer for relief is struck.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

In accordance with the longstanding and binding precedent of [2023] FCR 62, Nominal Damages may be requested in case the other damages are not able to be proven.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Korromf
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM, that on 19th June, the Plaintiff was lawfully incarcerated in a correctional facility operated by the Defendant.
2. NO CONTEST, that during the period of incarceration, the Plaintiff became trapped in a hole within the prison and was unable to escape through any reasonable means (as shown from the screenshot below)
3. AFFIRM, that the Plaintiff repeatedly requested assistance, DENY, that it was from staff and members of the department of homeland security through the chat.
4. NO CONTEST, that a government official responded to the Plaintiff's requests with the statement "rip" but did not provide assistance or take action to free the Plaintiff.
5. DENY, that the Plaintiff remained trapped for approximately one hour and was unable to access food, leave the hole, or otherwise care for himself.
6. NO CONTEST, that during this period, the Plaintiff suffered severe hunger, starvation, distress, DENY, that [Plaintiff] was placed at risk of death due to his inability to escape.
7. DENY, that Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff's situation, DENY, that the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to assist him.
8. DENY, that the Plaintiff was [sic] eventually died after enduring close to one hour of confinement within the hole.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff did not file a complaint with the DHS through the proper venues, opting to randomly posting messages in general chat, which isn’t a reliable way of contacting Defendant. Therefore there was no reliable way for Defendant to be aware of Plaintiff’s problems. Plaintiff also could’ve opened a staff ticket via /ticket to get help from a staff member.
2. The server runs on normal difficulty, meaning Plaintiff cannot die from hunger.

1783858271355.png

minecraft.wiki

Difficulty – Minecraft Wiki

Difficulty is an option in Minecraft that has a direct impact on the ease of gameplay, allowing the game's challenges to be tailored to the player's skill level.
minecraft.wiki minecraft.wiki
Excerpt:
"The hunger bar can deplete, damaging the player until 1HP💔 remains if it drains completely."

Witnesses:
TrueDarklander
Korromf

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 12th day of July 2026.

 
Last edited:
Johnes said:

Answer to Complaint


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

Korromf
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM, that on 19th June, the Plaintiff was lawfully incarcerated in a correctional facility operated by the Defendant.
2. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY, that during the period of incarceration, the Plaintiff became trapped in a hole within the prison and was unable to escape through any reasonable means (as shown from the screenshot below)
3. AFFIRM, that the Plaintiff repeatedly requested assistance, DENY, that it was from staff and members of the department of homeland security through the chat, NOTING, that there is no proof Plaintiff asked for assistance from server staff, nor it was more than one member.
4. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY, that a government official responded to the Plaintiff's requests with the statement "rip" but did not provide assistance or take action to free the Plaintiff.
5. DENY, that the Plaintiff remained trapped for approximately one hour and was unable to access food, leave the hole, or otherwise care for himself.
6. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY, that during this period, the Plaintiff suffered severe hunger, starvation, distress, DENY, that [Plaintiff] was placed at risk of death due to his inability to escape.
7. DENY, that Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff's situation, DENY, that the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to assist him.
8. DENY, that the Plaintiff was [sic] eventually died after enduring close to one hour of confinement within the hole.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff did not file a complaint with the DHS through the proper venues, opting to randomly posting messages in general chat, which isn’t a reliable way of contacting Defendant. Therefore there was no reliable way for Defendant to be aware of Plaintiff’s problems. Plaintiff also could’ve opened a staff ticket via /ticket to get help from a staff member.
2. The server runs on normal difficulty, meaning Plaintiff cannot die from hunger.

View attachment 90713

minecraft.wiki

Difficulty – Minecraft Wiki

Difficulty is an option in Minecraft that has a direct impact on the ease of gameplay, allowing the game's challenges to be tailored to the player's skill level.
minecraft.wiki minecraft.wiki
Excerpt:
"The hunger bar can deplete, damaging the player until 1HP💔 remains if it drains completely."

Witnesses:
TrueDarklander
Korromf

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 12th day of July 2026.

Click to expand...
The Defense is reminded to familiarize themselves with and follow the Court Rules and Procedures, and particularly Rule 3.2.

The Defense is ordered to amend their Answer to comply with the rules within 24 hours.
 
Dartanboy said:
The Defense is reminded to familiarize themselves with and follow the Court Rules and Procedures, and particularly Rule 3.2.

The Defense is ordered to amend their Answer to comply with the rules within 24 hours.
Click to expand...
Should I provide a list of changes or is editing the original answer sufficient?
 
Your Honour,
I have stricken the following text from fact no. 3:
"NOTING, that there is no proof Plaintiff asked for assistance from server staff, nor it was more than one member."

I have also replaced all "NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY" phrases to "NO CONTEST" and have given them the appropriate color.
 
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
 
juniperfig said:
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
The courtroom is not the place for settlement negotiations. You are warned that further actions like this will result in Contempt of Court charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top