Lawsuit: Adjourned lucaaasserole v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 45

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rose_EX

Rose_EX

Citizen
Joined
Jun 12, 2025
Messages
1

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lucaaasserole (Represented by Rose_EX)
Plaintiff

v.

FearlessNacktmul
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defendant (FearlessNacktmul) has made several appearances at plots they've been banned from, with no reason at all, deciding to start murdering lucaaasserole repeatedly.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. lucaaasserole
2. FearlessNacktmul

II. FACTS
1. The defendant trespassed private property which they had been banned from beforehand (R048), to then proceed to "camp" in the basement of the property to repeatedly murder the plaintiff, asking for money to leave, stating that the mafia wanted the plaintiff's head, dates 12/06/2025. (Related to P-002)

2. The defendant accessed a plot (C232) he was banned from (P-004) to murder it's owner (lucaasserole) and tried to murder their partners, who at the time were in AFK mode and unable to be killed. (Related to P-003)

3. The defendant threatened the plaintiff via mail, with the words "Im after you." (Related to P-001)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Harrasment
2. Murder (Estimated of 7 times)
3. Trespassing
4. Verbal threats
5. The defendant's actions resulted in a Loss of Enjoyment of Redmont, as stated in the Legal Damages Act § 7 (1)(a)(III):
"The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont - Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm. Loss of enjoyment in Redmont damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive."
Click to expand...
The defendant made it impossible for the plaintiff to engage with anyone on Redmont, by threatening, murdering, trespassing, and harrassing them, resulting on the impossibility of enjoyment of the server.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The sum of 20000$ in punitive damages for the amount of aggressions commited and outrageous actions by the defendant.
2. The sum of 10000$ in Consequential Damages due to a Loss of Enjoyment of Redmont.
3. 6000$ in legal fees as it is the minimum set by the Legal Damages Act.

V. EVIDENCE

Verbal Threats

dated 12/06/2025


1749841935539.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 13th day of June 2025

1749842084348.png

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@FearlessNacktmul is required to appear before the District Court in the case of lucaaasserole v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 45.

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.

 
Your honor,

I will be representing the defendant as a public defender as one was requested for this case.

Thank you.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

lucaaasserole
Plaintiff

v.

FearlessNacktmul
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM The defendant trespassed private property, but NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY they had been banned from beforehand (R048). AFFIRM the defendant proceeded to "camp" in the basement of the property to repeatedly murder the plaintiff, asking for money to leave, stating that the mafia wanted the plaintiff's head, dates 12/06/2025. (Related to P-002)
2. AFFIRM The defendant accessed a plot (C232) he was banned from (P-004) to murder its owner (lucaasserole) and tried to murder their partners, who at the time were in AFK mode and unable to be killed. (Related to P-003)
3. AFFIRM The defendant mailed the plaintiff with the words "im after you", but NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY it was a threat.

II. DEFENCES
1. The large majority of these are criminal action and should be pursued by the commonwealth and tried accordingly. Most can be found within the Violent Offences Act. (§5.5, §5.7, §5.12), as well as Verbally Threatening Act (§2), and Tresspassing and Theft Offenses Act (§4.4)
2. 15fine v. wttn2c [2025 DCR 32] establishes that after an initial murder- it would be unreasonable of the plaintiff to return to the same area with an expectation of safety.
3. It’s unlikely that this action resulted in loss of enjoyment.
4. It’s not clear that the defendant was banned ‘beforehand’

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 24th day of June 2025

 
We will now enter Discovery which shall end 72 hours from the time of this post.

Discovery may be ended early upon agreement of both parties.
 
Given the time already elapsed and the lack of any admissions during Discovery, I'll be allotting shorter times for statements to adhere to the spirit of a speedy trial.

Plaintiff has 48 hours from the time of this post to file an Opening Statement.
 
Defendant has 48 hours from the time of this post to file an Opening Statement.
 
Plaintiff has 48 hours from the time of this post to file a Closing Statement.
 
Defendant has 48 hours from the time of this post to file a Closing Statement.
 
The Court will now enter recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
lucaaasserole v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 45
VERDICT

1. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. Defendant trespassed on Plaintiff’s private property, plot R048. Defendant repeatedly killed Plaintiff in the basement of said property.
2. Defendant trespassed on another property, plot C232, to continue murdering Plaintiff.
3. Defendant threatened Plaintiff via mail.

2. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
The same position as Plaintiff with the following differences:
1. It is not clear whether Defendant was banned from plots R048 and C232 and
2. It is not clear whether Defendant’s mail to Plaintiff was a threat.

3. OPINION
On the first day, Defendant entered Plaintiff's property, R048, and Plaintiff instructed him to leave. Defendant refused this instruction and proceeded to repeatedly kill Plaintiff, stating that he would stop if Plaintiff paid the “people” money. In total, Defendant killed Plaintiff 7 times. P-002. The next day, on a different property, C232, Defendant again killed Plaintiff, and at some point sent Plaintiff mail stating, “im after you.” P-003; P-001.

It is established precedent that relief for damages from criminal acts may be pursued in a civil action in the courts. E.g., MysticPhunky v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 26. Further, 15fine v. wttn2c [2025]DCR 32 does not apply in this case. 15fine establishes that it is unreasonable to return to the place of your initial murder, but the murders in this case do not take place in a public location, such as spawn. They take place in Plaintiff’s home. It is not unreasonable to return to your own home.

There is no contest whether Defendant murdered or harassed Plaintiff, violating the Violent Offences Act §§ 5.5, 5.7 (repealed June 22nd, 2025)¹. For trespass, even though it is not obvious whether Defendant was “banned beforehand,” being banned beforehand is not demanded by the law. Trespassing and Theft Offenses Act § 4.4 (repealed June 22nd, 2025)¹ states, “The act of entering or being in a place that is not open to the public, is posted as no entry, or in which the owner, occupier, or person having control or management of the place has specifically instructed to leave and allowed no entry.” (Emphasis added.) Evidence shows that Plaintiff owned R048 and specifically instructed Defendant to leave. The evidence leaves it unclear whether Plaintiff owned C232. Lastly, since Defendant’s mail was sent to Plaintiff the day after the events that occurred on R048, it is reasonable to infer that the mail was a verbal threat, which is illegal per Verbally Threatening Act § 2.2 (repealed June 22nd, 2025)¹.

This case warrants relief. It is reasonable to assume that people may enjoy spending time on their personal property. In this case, Plaintiff was denied that opportunity which entitles them to consequential damages as set out in Legal Damages Act § 7.1.a.III. Since MysticPhunky also established that “[m]urder is clearly an outrageous act,” Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages.

The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff.

¹ The Violent Offences Act, the Trespassing and Theft Offenses Act, and the Verbally Threatening Act were all repealed by the passage of the Criminal Code Act. However, the facts of this case took place prior to the passage which is why the old laws are applied.

4. DECISION
The District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont grants the modified prayer for relief:
1. $5,000 for consequential damages,
2. $3,000 for punitive damages, and
3. $2,000 for legal fees.

The District Court thanks all those involved. Court is adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top