Lawsuit: Pending lnvlsbie v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 115

L

lnvlsbie

Citizen
lnvlsbie
lnvlsbie
Attorney
Joined
May 24, 2026
Messages
28
Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lnvlsbie (Plaintiff)

v.

Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
“An acquaintance and I were outside spawn trying to converse at 23:15PM GMT+2when the player by the name of LavBebik shot at us multiple times with a fire arm and each time I had shot back in self defense to defend myself and said acquaintance. The following day I had been charged with murder of said shooter, imprisoned for 15mins and fined 350$ and I had opened a ticket to appeal said charge. I had sent the 2clips containing the whole situation to the DHS and offered a settlement. They had told me threateningly that I had been claiming self defense as I had shot first and killed said shooter once even though I had provided sufficient evidence showing that I had been protecting said acquaintance. I had then asked a different police officer about it outside the ticket after I closed it, and they said "This is a near perfect example of self defense".”



I. PARTIES

1. lnvlsbie (plaintiff), barrister working for Singeheart,Addams and Associates
2. Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. I had been chatting with the said acquaintance.
2. The shooter named LavBebik had started shooting at my acquaintance.
3. I had defended myself and the acquaintance by shooting and killing LavBebik in self-defense.
4. LavBebik returned and shot at us again.
5. This continued well over 5 times and lasted approximately 2 minutes before we got away.
6. I had shown the evidence I had clipped to the DHS in the ticket unedited. Who had then threatened me saying i was claiming false self-defense and it can be punished attempting to scare me off to avoid a lawsuit.
7. I had clearly stated in the ticket that I wanted to settle out of court to make it easier on both sides to which they refused. The officer who claimed the ticket was not even trying to help and merely avoided conflict while attempting to gaslight me into not suing.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant has caused me irreparable damage to my career reputation as a lawyer due to the false arrest in question.
2. The defendant has fined me 350$ based on a false arrest.
3. The defendant has sentenced me to prison for 15 minutes based on a false arrest.
4. The defendant has caused my integrity as a barrister / lawyer to be questioned.
5. The defendant has caused me emotional distress.
6. The defendant has caused me immense damage to my reputation as a person that might negatively affect my quality of life on the server.
7. The defendant has committed police misconduct and has terribly harmed my impression of the server thus making me lose reason to play and burning out, further harming my experience on the server.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensation of 15.000$ for the damage caused to my career reputation.
2. Compensation of 50$ per minute sentenced in jail.
3. Compensation of 350$ for the charge
4. Removing the false charge off my police record.
5. Compensation of 12.500$ for the damage caused to my integrity as a lawyer / barrister.
6. Compensation of 15.000$ for the emotional distress the defendant has caused me to suffer during the 3-day period.
7. Compensation of 20.000$ for the damage to my reputation as a person that might negatively affect my quality of life on the server. 8. Compensation of 25.000$ for the damage caused to my experience of the server causing me to near lose interest in the server itself.
9. Compensation of 20% of the cases value in legal fees.

Total of compensation totals up to 100.320$

EVIDENCE

P-001

P-002

P-003
Screenshot 2026-06-16 210002.png


P-004
Screenshot 2026-06-16 210247.png

P-005
Is the pdf named #dhs-33109.pdf, the thread does not allow me to insert it.

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 19th day of June 2026.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - EVIDENCE

The court is inclined to dismiss the case due to the unavailability of the medal.tv clips.

Evidence is required to be permanently available per the Court Rules & Procedures, Rule 4.6.

Is the Plaintiff able to produce the clips in an admissible way (such as YouTube)?

 
Dartanboy said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - EVIDENCE

The court is inclined to dismiss the case due to the unavailability of the medal.tv clips.

Evidence is required to be permanently available per the Court Rules & Procedures, Rule 4.6.

Is the Plaintiff able to produce the clips in an admissible way (such as YouTube)?

Click to expand...
Yes your honor,I will show the evidence in another way. May I request 48 hours to amend it?
 
Good afternoon your honor. SteelRain for the plaintiff. The above evidence has been amended to a proper format per your instruction. Ready to proceed.
 

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 lnvlsbie v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 115.

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
HEARSAY

Your Honour,
based on persuasive precedent in [2026] DCR 76, allowing the use of the hearsay objection on non-witness related matters, we ask that the Court strikes P-003.

It shows an unsworn, out-of-court testimony that Plaintiff is trying to use as evidence. These may be unreliable and therefore the Court should not use them as sources of reliable information.

 
Johnes said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
HEARSAY

Your Honour,
based on persuasive precedent in [2026] DCR 76, allowing the use of the hearsay objection on non-witness related matters, we ask that the Court strikes P-003.

It shows an unsworn, out-of-court testimony that Plaintiff is trying to use as evidence. These may be unreliable and therefore the Court should not use them as sources of reliable information.

Click to expand...
Your Honour, may we edit this to also include "Improper Evidence"?
 

Answer to Complaint


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

lnvlsbie
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRM, that Plaintiff had been chatting with the said acquaintance.
2. NO CONTEST, that the shooter named LavBebik had started shooting at Plaintiff’s acquaintance.
3. AFFIRM, that Plaintiff had defended himself and the acquaintance by shooting and killing LavBebik in self-defense.
4. AFFIRM, that LavBebik returned and shot at us again.
5. NO CONTEST, that this continued well over 5 times and lasted approximately 2 minutes before we got away.
6. AFFIRM, that I had shown the evidence I had clipped to the DHS in the ticket unedited. DENY, that [the DHS] had then threatened me saying I was claiming false self-defense, AFFIRM, that it can be punished, DENY, that [it was] attempting to scare me off to avoid a lawsuit.
7. AFFIRM, that Plaintiff had clearly stated in the ticket that he wanted to settle out of court to make it easier on both sides, to which they refused. DENY, that the officer who claimed the ticket was not even trying to help and merely avoided conflict while attempting to gaslight him into not suing.

II. DEFENCES​

1. No Self-Defense On Side Of Plaintiff Occurred​

As pointed out in the DHS ticket, Plaintiff’s conduct did not fulfill the definition of self-defense under Part I § 6(10)(a) of the Criminal Code Act.

Self-Defense is defined as follows: (Id.)
(10) Self Defence
(a) A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied.
Click to expand...

The wording of the statute is necessary to analyze here; “against the individual” (emphasis mine) implies that the action is done against the victim themselves. This precludes any self-defense of others, as the wording of the statute does not include “against an individual.”

Therefore Plaintiff’s claim for self-defense falls apart when scrutinized in the lens of the CCA.

2. Plaintiff’s Claims for “reputational damage”/”damage to integrity”/etc. Are Bogus​

Plaintiff claims considerable damages (none of which are properly classified under the Redmont Civil Code Act) arising from his arrest for the alleged illegal arrest.

As we have argued above, the arrest was not false, as the claim for self-defense was not fulfilled. Even if we consider everything in the most favorable light to Plaintiff; finding that the arrest was illegal, we find that the alleged damages have no legal ground to stand on.

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support that his reputation was damaged in any way, whatsoever. Let’s look at it more simply. Being arrested is a very common occurrence, and no one bats an eye at one having been arrested. The same applies for the claim of damage to integrity and reputation.

For the damages of “emotional distress” and what is presumably loss of enjoyment, these are nullified by two facts:
A. Being arrested and jailed does not cause significant disruption to gameplay, the jailing was only for 15 minutes, and
B. The underlying arrest was lawful as argued above.

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 13th day of July 2026.


Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Plaintiff clearly lacks standing to pursue a lawsuit against Defendant. In order for suits to be filed, the following conditions must be met: (Id. at 2.1)

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:
1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.
Click to expand...

As we have argued above, the cause of injury was clearly not against the law, as self-defense does not apply.

 
Johnes said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
HEARSAY

Your Honour,
based on persuasive precedent in [2026] DCR 76, allowing the use of the hearsay objection on non-witness related matters, we ask that the Court strikes P-003.

It shows an unsworn, out-of-court testimony that Plaintiff is trying to use as evidence. These may be unreliable and therefore the Court should not use them as sources of reliable information.

Click to expand...
Sustained
 
Johnes said:

Motion


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

Your Honour,
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules & Procedures, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Plaintiff clearly lacks standing to pursue a lawsuit against Defendant. In order for suits to be filed, the following conditions must be met: (Id. at 2.1)


As we have argued above, the cause of injury was clearly not against the law, as self-defense does not apply.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

The Defense states their legal arguments as fact and expects the Court to simply assume they are true.

It seems this case is about whether defense of another might be considered self-defense under Redmontian law.

The Court finds this question worthy of litigation, and declines to dismiss the case at this time.
 
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