Lawsuit: Adjourned Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42

[BlestSnow636130]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT





CIVIL ACTION





Marissa4,


Plaintiff


v.


SplashyBoi74,


Defendant





COMPLAINT





On October 15, 2024, the Defendant unlawfully killed 15 of the Plaintiff’s animals. This act inflicted both emotional and financial harm upon the Plaintiff by depriving her of valuable property and companionship,





WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF





I. PARTIES





1. Plaintiff: Marissa4


2. Defendant: SplashyBoi74





II. FACTS





1. The Plaintiff was the caretaker and owner of multiple animals at the time of the incident.


2. On October 15, 2024, the Defendant intentionally killed 15 of the Plaintiff’s animals, as documented in evidence exhibits P-001, P-002, P-003, and P-004.





III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The act committed by the defendant resulted in emotional distress and financial loss to the Plaintiff, depriving her of her property and the companionship of her animals.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF





The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:


.


• Punitive Damages: $10,000 to deter similar conduct in the future.


• Legal Fees: $5,000 under the Legal Damages Act.


• Additional Relief: Any further relief the court may deem appropriate.





By submitting this complaint, I acknowledge and understand the penalties of perjury for any knowingly false statements.





DATED: This 7th day of November, 2024





Exhibits:


P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@splashyboi74 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

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.

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Your Honour,
The time period of 72 hours for defendant to appear has expired
Requesting you to move to default judgement

Writ of Summons

@splashyboi74 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

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.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,
The time period of 72 hours for defendant to appear has expired
Requesting you to move to default judgement

I am completely sorry for the delay in this case, but this case is currently in need of a public defender. Until we can assign a public defender this case is frozen.

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honor,
Soild Law Firm Will Be Defending the Defendant

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,
Soild Law Firm Will Be Defending the Defendant View attachment 49980

Ok then we with be moving to answer to complaint. The defendant has 72 hours

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honor,
I am sorry i accidently posted wrong un edited version

 

[KingBOB99878]

Motion

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

The defence respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, under the following rules:

1. Rule 5.12 (lack of personal jurisdiction). The plaintiff is trying to prosecute the defendant again for violating the Animal & Pet Offences Act as they tried in Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 filed on Nov 6th, 2024 (no case number). A citizen cannot prosecute another citizen, this power is reserved for the DOJ as decided in that case. This is illustrated by the fact that the plaintiff only asks for punitive damages, and no compensatory damages.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). The plaintiff has not shown the court any evidence of extreme financial loss or any emotional harm. They have only shown that the animals were killed on a farm plot. Farms are places where animals get bred and killed regularly, it’s part of the business model.

The defence moves to have this case dismissed with prejudice so that the defendant won’t have to respond to this matter in court over and over again. If this motion to dismiss is granted then this matter will have been litigated twice. Allowing the plaintiff to refile yet again would be a waste of time and resources of the court and the parties.

The defence would like to hold off on posting the answer to complaint until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If this is not an option the defence will post the answer to complaint within 24 hours of notification.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

The defence respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, under the following rules:

1. Rule 5.12 (lack of personal jurisdiction). The plaintiff is trying to prosecute the defendant again for violating the Animal & Pet Offences Act as they tried in Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 filed on Nov 6th, 2024 (no case number). A citizen cannot prosecute another citizen, this power is reserved for the DOJ as decided in that case. This is illustrated by the fact that the plaintiff only asks for punitive damages, and no compensatory damages.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). The plaintiff has not shown the court any evidence of extreme financial loss or any emotional harm. They have only shown that the animals were killed on a farm plot. Farms are places where animals get bred and killed regularly, it’s part of the business model.

The defence moves to have this case dismissed with prejudice so that the defendant won’t have to respond to this matter in court over and over again. If this motion to dismiss is granted then this matter will have been litigated twice. Allowing the plaintiff to refile yet again would be a waste of time and resources of the court and the parties.

The defence would like to hold off on posting the answer to complaint until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If this is not an option the defence will post the answer to complaint within 24 hours of notification.

Denied

They are no longer trying to charge the defendant with a crime as they were doing in the original filling of this case. They are now only going for civil damages which is not prosecution.

Even though they did not provide evidence for their financial loss, emotional damage claims have a different burden of proof, the reasonable persons test. Would a reasonable person have emotional damage from the facts in this case? I believe so and therefore do have a claim

 

[KingBOB99878]

​

Answer to Complaint

​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Marissa4,
Plaintiff
v.
SplashyBoi74,
Defendant

---

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defence AFFIRMS that SplashyBoi74 killed those animals.
The defence AFFIRMS Marissa4 lost money but DISPUTES that it is a big financial loss.
The defence DISPUTES Marrisa4 had significant emotional harm
The defence DISPUTES that punitive damages are warranted.

---

II. Defences
Animal life on farms:
As shown by the plaintiff, SplashyBoi74 is responsible for the deaths of 15 of the Plaintiffs' animals. This is undeniably wrong behaviour, and the defence regrets this incident.

These animals were located in a barn on the plaintiffs’ farm as shown by D-001, D-002 and D-003. The defence, however, argues that the death of animals on farms is a common and expected part of agricultural life—whether they are bred, raised for sale, or ultimately slaughtered for meat and other items. It is well understood that animals on farms are killed as part of normal operations. Therefore, the defence believes that the Plaintiff did not experience significant emotional distress over the loss, as these animals were not kept as "pets", but were primarily used for farming and breeding purposes. To conclude the defence believes that the animals dying did not cause significant emotional harm, certainly not to the level that punitive damages are needed.

Financial loss:
On the financial side, the loss sustained is minimal, and does not rise to a level that could be considered outrageous or deserving of punitive damages. Exhibits D-004 and D-005 show that spawn eggs are available in chestshops at 60$ apiece.

Evidence

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

 

[ko531]

Ok time for opening statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statement

 

[Omegabiebel]

Your honor the period of discovery was skipped. We have several requests and interrogatories we would like to make.

(CEO of Solid Law, temporarily filling in for KingBOB to clear up this issue)

 

[ko531]

Your honor the period of discovery was skipped. We have several requests and interrogatories we would like to make.

(CEO of Solid Law, temporarily filling in for KingBOB to clear up this issue)

My bad, with the defendant not showing up I thought discovery already happened

Discovery starts now and will last the next 72 hours

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Your Honour,
We would like to call Marissa4 as a witness

 

[KingBOB99878]

The defence would like to request from the plaintiff:

• Sell (and if possible refill logs) and locations of chest shops that the plaintiff owns, rents or directly supplies and that sell animal products such as beef and chicken. We would also like the price of the items sold.
• Any supply contract where the plaintiff supplies animal products. We would also like to request the corresponding amounts and price of the items sold.

Additionally the defence would like to call Marrissa4 as a witness.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The opposing counsel did not post proof of representation in their complaint as required by district court rules (specifically the “Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court” forum post). As a result the defense requests for the complaint and any further post to be struck. With no complaint we request for the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

Sidenote: I will be taking over this case from KingBOB99878 (same firm Solid Law, just different lawyer). He will be unavailable for the next few days due to irl obligations.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the prayer for relief concerning the legal award in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), when asking for a legal award the lawyer should post their fee structure along with their proof of representation when filing the case. This has not happened and thus there is insufficient evidence for this prayer of relief.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), a lawyer that works on a contingency fee (no cure no pay) cannot ask for a legal award. BlestSnow636130 works as a paralegal for Titan Law as shown in D-006. Titan law uses a contingency fee for all of their cases as shown in D-007 and D-008.

 

[dodrio3]

The Defence Wishes to enter the following as evidence

Proof Of representation.

Payment Structure

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the prayer for relief concerning the legal award in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), when asking for a legal award the lawyer should post their fee structure along with their proof of representation when filing the case. This has not happened and thus there is insufficient evidence for this prayer of relief.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), a lawyer that works on a contingency fee (no cure no pay) cannot ask for a legal award. BlestSnow636130 works as a paralegal for Titan Law as shown in D-006. Titan law uses a contingency fee for all of their cases as shown in D-007 and D-008.

Response To Motion
Your Honour,

The Defendant has argued that our claim to legal fees is invalid by misinterpreting the relevant provisions of the law. Specifically, they rely on the Legal Damages Act, which states:
"Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a client on a contingency basis, wherein their fees are contingent upon the outcome of the case, they are prohibited from requesting additional legal fees."

This provision, however, does not preclude us from seeking legal fees as part of the prayer for relief. Rather, it prohibits charging the client more than the agreed-upon contingency fee. Our request for legal fees is consistent with the disclosed fee structure and the governing law. The Defendant’s interpretation of this statute conflates the prohibition against exceeding contingency agreements with the legitimate right to seek fees in the course of litigation, and thus, their objection on this basis is unfounded.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s assertion that there is a "lack of claims" is equally flawed. They rely on Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules, which states:
"A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against any claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

Legal fees, however, are not themselves a substantive claim for relief. They are a prayer for relief that is ancillary to the substantive claims in this matter. This distinction is critical: a motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5 applies to the insufficiency of claims for relief, not to prayers for relief such as attorney fees. The Defendant's motion, therefore, misapplies Rule 5.5 and lacks merit.

In conclusion, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on a misinterpretation of both the relevant legal framework and procedural rules. Their arguments neither address the substantive claims at issue nor provide a legitimate basis for dismissal. We respectfully request that this Court deny the Defendant’s motion in its entirety and allow this matter to proceed.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The opposing counsel did not post proof of representation in their complaint as required by district court rules (specifically the “Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court” forum post). As a result the defense requests for the complaint and any further post to be struck. With no complaint we request for the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

Sidenote: I will be taking over this case from KingBOB99878 (same firm Solid Law, just different lawyer). He will be unavailable for the next few days due to irl obligations.

Response To Objections
Your Honour,

The Defendant’s objection, asserting that the Plaintiff failed to post proof of representation as required by district court rules, is misplaced. While proof of representation may be a procedural requirement, its omission does not invalidate the filing of the complaint. Any procedural deficiency of this nature is curable and does not warrant dismissal of the case. Striking the complaint or dismissing the case outright for such a minor and correctable issue would result in undue prejudice to the Plaintiff and run counter to principles of fairness and justice.

Moreover, the Plaintiff’s filing substantially complies with the intent of the rule. The complaint clearly identifies legal representation, outlines the claims at issue, and specifies the relief sought. This provides sufficient notice to the Defendant and allows them to respond appropriately. The absence of a specific procedural document does not impair the Defendant’s ability to address the substance of the claims.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the Defendant’s objection and allow the case to proceed.

The Following are links to cases in which no Proof of Representation has been give and the case has proceeded to a verdic. (This is only a phew of many)

1. Lawsuit: Adjourned - totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40

2.https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/ishowed_up-v-michealson-2024-dcr-35.22697/

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor, the defense would like to request 72 hours extra in discovery to wait for staff and DHS to provide logs the defense requested. This has been requested since 19/11/2024 9:43 GMT+1 and the request is still processing according to D-009 and D-010. These logs are critical for the argument of the defense. Currently we would like to keep the log request confidential as to prevent disclosing parts of our argument prematurely to the plaintiff. If necessary we can disclose within 24 hours if needed for a ruling on this request.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Voluntary discovery submission (some of these may be duplicate with the answer to complaint):

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The opposing counsel did not post proof of representation in their complaint as required by district court rules (specifically the “Creating a Lawsuit in the District Court” forum post). As a result the defense requests for the complaint and any further post to be struck. With no complaint we request for the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

Sidenote: I will be taking over this case from KingBOB99878 (same firm Solid Law, just different lawyer). He will be unavailable for the next few days due to irl obligations.

Overruled. This is strictly procedural and not a reason to dismiss an entire case. Plus, the plaintiff has now shown proof of representation.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the prayer for relief concerning the legal award in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), when asking for a legal award the lawyer should post their fee structure along with their proof of representation when filing the case. This has not happened and thus there is insufficient evidence for this prayer of relief.
2. Rule 5.5 (lack of claim). According to the legal award act section 9 point (3)(a), a lawyer that works on a contingency fee (no cure no pay) cannot ask for a legal award. BlestSnow636130 works as a paralegal for Titan Law as shown in D-006. Titan law uses a contingency fee for all of their cases as shown in D-007 and D-008.

Denied. Lack of claim goes for claims of relief not prayers. As you did nothing to attack their claims for relief, I must deny the motion. Besides even if lack of claim could be used against prayers of relief, and I were to strike their legal damages, they still have punitive damages they are asking for which would still be standing.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor, the defense would like to request 72 hours extra in discovery to wait for staff and DHS to provide logs the defense requested. This has been requested since 19/11/2024 9:43 GMT+1 and the request is still processing according to D-009 and D-010. These logs are critical for the argument of the defense. Currently we would like to keep the log request confidential as to prevent disclosing parts of our argument prematurely to the plaintiff. If necessary we can disclose within 24 hours if needed for a ruling on this request.

Unless the plaintiff has an extremely good reason as to not extend discovery, Discovery will be extended until the 24th.

 

[dodrio3]

Unless the plaintiff has an extremely good reason as to not extend discovery, Discovery will be extended until the 24th.

The plaintiff does not object to extending discovery.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Voluntary submission: the criminal record of the defendant prior to this case.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
Staff still haven’t provided the logs requested as shown in D-019. The defense would like to request either another extension, or request that this case be frozen until the logs are provided by staff. The defense would like to stress that these logs are absolutely critical for our defense.

 

[Omegabiebel]

The defence would like to request from the plaintiff:

• Sell (and if possible refill logs) and locations of chest shops that the plaintiff owns, rents or directly supplies and that sell animal products such as beef and chicken. We would also like the price of the items sold.
• Any supply contract where the plaintiff supplies animal products. We would also like to request the corresponding amounts and price of the items sold.

Additionally the defence would like to call Marrissa4 as a witness.

Your honor, could we get a ruling on this request?

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
Staff still haven’t provided the logs requested as shown in D-019. The defense would like to request either another extension, or request that this case be frozen until the logs are provided by staff. The defense would like to stress that these logs are absolutely critical for our defense.

Since it does seem Staff is being slow getting the defendant's evidence I will extend discovery another 3 days, but this will be the last extension.

 

[ko531]

The defence would like to request from the plaintiff:

• Sell (and if possible refill logs) and locations of chest shops that the plaintiff owns, rents or directly supplies and that sell animal products such as beef and chicken. We would also like the price of the items sold.
• Any supply contract where the plaintiff supplies animal products. We would also like to request the corresponding amounts and price of the items sold.

Additionally the defence would like to call Marrissa4 as a witness.

The Plaintiff is required to provide this information.

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff is required to provide this information.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER


Your Honour the Plaintiff is not requesting any damages for the loss of profit made from the animals that were killed. we are only requesting to revive punitive and emotional damages for the outargues conduct of the defendant thus these logs only revile confidential information and trade secrets of my client which they whish to keep secret. Thus going ahead with the motion would deny my client of their constitutional rights.

Secondly the amount of items sold does not bare any value on the case. it is only the value of the items that is important as their is always potential for the items to be sold. Thus the plaintiff does not wish to reveal any links to their client.

If this motion is not granted then the defendant wishes to present all the information above in a closed court as it could give sensitive information to their competitors.

 

[dodrio3]

Since it does seem Staff is being slow getting the defendant's evidence I will extend discovery another 3 days, but this will be the last extension.

Motion

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER

Your Honour their is no evidence of D-19 the defence has based their motion to dismiss upon. This is ether because they are in competent of court and deleted the entry or because they ever provided this in the first place. it is not fair on the plaintiff to prolong this trial based on a motion to extended discovery where the extension was granted based on a piece of evidence that does not exist within the trial.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER

Your Honour their is no evidence of D-19 the defence has based their motion to dismiss upon. This is ether because they are in competent of court and deleted the entry or because they ever provided this in the first place. it is not fair on the plaintiff to prolong this trial based on a motion to extended discovery where the extension was granted based on a piece of evidence that does not exist within the trial.

My apologies this was a simple clerical error. This should be D-021 as attached in the motion. As for the evidence, the logs are received and will be posted in court within 24 hours. Well within the deadline.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Voluntary submission: (see attached).
NOTE: D-035 shows the request that was submitted to staff/dhs.
NOTE: D-029 and D-030 show the same logs as are submitted in the plaintiffs complaint.
The defence will also be calling ASlayingFish(AsexualDinosaur) as a witness since he is the one who fulfilled the discovery request.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER


Your Honour the Plaintiff is not requesting any damages for the loss of profit made from the animals that were killed. we are only requesting to revive punitive and emotional damages for the outargues conduct of the defendant thus these logs only revile confidential information and trade secrets of my client which they whish to keep secret. Thus going ahead with the motion would deny my client of their constitutional rights.

Secondly the amount of items sold does not bare any value on the case. it is only the value of the items that is important as their is always potential for the items to be sold. Thus the plaintiff does not wish to reveal any links to their client.

If this motion is not granted then the defendant wishes to present all the information above in a closed court as it could give sensitive information to their competitors.

Overruled. In your claims for relief, you have emotional distress and financial loss. By putting financial loss, you have opened the door to this level of scrutiny as the defense is entitled to explore the validity of your claims. By claiming financial loss based on the potential to sell someone is too broad. for financial loss the acts must have either caused money to leave the plaintiff's account (added cost) or prevented money from entering their account (loss of sales).

I will grant the closed court request.

Motion

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECOSIDER

Your Honour their is no evidence of D-19 the defence has based their motion to dismiss upon. This is ether because they are in competent of court and deleted the entry or because they ever provided this in the first place. it is not fair on the plaintiff to prolong this trial based on a motion to extended discovery where the extension was granted based on a piece of evidence that does not exist within the trial.

Overruled. There does seem to be no Evidence D-19 but it is clear with the context of the request to extend discovery and the evidence provided in the same message that D-21 must be what they were talking about. This is most likely a clerical error and without you providing evidence on the contrary, the discovery extension will stand.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Failure to Provide Discovery (Rule 5.13): The deadline to submit the discovery request has run out even though the plaintiff claimed they had it more than 35 hours ago in closed court and the court mandated they had to submit it. This gives the defense a huge disadvantage regarding the claim of outrageous financial loss. The defense therefore requests for the claim of financial loss to be dismissed. The defense believes that based on the evidence provided (D-004 and D-005 in the answer to complaint) this claim lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5): D-022 until D-035 show that Marissa4 kills their own animals regularly, just as expected on a commercial farm where animals are bred and killed for money. The plaintiff even admitted as having chestshops with animal products.
Between 15th of October and 25th of November 218 animals were killed directly by Marissa4, this excludes the 27 pages with at least 27 kills (at least 1 kill per page) related to physics based deaths. The inclusion of fire and cramming shows Marissa4 burning their own animals alive and neglecting them to the point that they die by entity cramming. No person with a strong emotional connection to these animals would kill them, especially not in this way.

In addition to that, not a single use, mention or even hint of a nametag was found on the farming plot where the animals were killed. This shows Marissa4 not even giving them a name, let alone that there was an emotional connection. The only thing the plaintiff has that may even begin to prove an emotional connection is the biased testimony of Marissa4, the plaintiff themself.

For these reasons the defense believes that the emotional distress claim has little to no evidence and no merit, we therefore move for dismissal with prejudice.

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Failure to Provide Discovery (Rule 5.13): The deadline to submit the discovery request has run out even though the plaintiff claimed they had it more than 35 hours ago in closed court and the court mandated they had to submit it. This gives the defense a huge disadvantage regarding the claim of outrageous financial loss. The defense therefore requests for the claim of financial loss to be dismissed. The defense believes that based on the evidence provided (D-004 and D-005 in the answer to complaint) this claim lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5): D-022 until D-035 show that Marissa4 kills their own animals regularly, just as expected on a commercial farm where animals are bred and killed for money. The plaintiff even admitted as having chestshops with animal products.
Between 15th of October and 25th of November 218 animals were killed directly by Marissa4, this excludes the 27 pages with at least 27 kills (at least 1 kill per page) related to physics based deaths. The inclusion of fire and cramming shows Marissa4 burning their own animals alive and neglecting them to the point that they die by entity cramming. No person with a strong emotional connection to these animals would kill them, especially not in this way.

In addition to that, not a single use, mention or even hint of a nametag was found on the farming plot where the animals were killed. This shows Marissa4 not even giving them a name, let alone that there was an emotional connection. The only thing the plaintiff has that may even begin to prove an emotional connection is the biased testimony of Marissa4, the plaintiff themself.

For these reasons the defense believes that the emotional distress claim has little to no evidence and no merit, we therefore move for dismissal with prejudice.

As per the first point I have been busy with a funeral of a close family member so I have not had time to post some pictures for a video game. I will post them shortly.

For the second point the defence is only arguing that one claiming that no emotional distress was taken upon and fails to acknowledge the finical loss that is also stated as a claim for relief

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Your Honour,
May we get a ruling on the motion and proceed to opening statements as it has been a week since the 72h extention was granted

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Failure to Provide Discovery (Rule 5.13): The deadline to submit the discovery request has run out even though the plaintiff claimed they had it more than 35 hours ago in closed court and the court mandated they had to submit it. This gives the defense a huge disadvantage regarding the claim of outrageous financial loss. The defense therefore requests for the claim of financial loss to be dismissed. The defense believes that based on the evidence provided (D-004 and D-005 in the answer to complaint) this claim lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Lack of Claim (Rule 5.5): D-022 until D-035 show that Marissa4 kills their own animals regularly, just as expected on a commercial farm where animals are bred and killed for money. The plaintiff even admitted as having chestshops with animal products.
Between 15th of October and 25th of November 218 animals were killed directly by Marissa4, this excludes the 27 pages with at least 27 kills (at least 1 kill per page) related to physics based deaths. The inclusion of fire and cramming shows Marissa4 burning their own animals alive and neglecting them to the point that they die by entity cramming. No person with a strong emotional connection to these animals would kill them, especially not in this way.

In addition to that, not a single use, mention or even hint of a nametag was found on the farming plot where the animals were killed. This shows Marissa4 not even giving them a name, let alone that there was an emotional connection. The only thing the plaintiff has that may even begin to prove an emotional connection is the biased testimony of Marissa4, the plaintiff themself.

For these reasons the defense believes that the emotional distress claim has little to no evidence and no merit, we therefore move for dismissal with prejudice.

Denied

1. The plaintiff did provided the evidence requests in closed court. I am not going to hold the late filing against them as they had a real life to attend to.

2. The claim being made is Emotional Damage AND Financial Loss. Even without the emotional damage they would still have a claim. I do not buy this argument against emotional damages as they clearly were using the animals for financial gain due to claims of financial loss. Also a reasonable person does not only suffer emotional damages when emotionally attached to the animals, they may also suffer it when they suffer financial losses.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to post opening statements

 

[BlestSnow636130]

OPENING STATEMENT
Your Honor,

On October 15, 2024, the Defendant, SplashyBoi74, carried out a deliberate and malicious act by killing 15 animals belonging to the Plaintiff, Marissa4. This act was not accidental or incidental to farm life; it was intentional destruction, as captured in clear, undeniable screenshots documenting the killings.

These animals were far more than replaceable items. They represented both a significant financial investment and a meaningful part of the Plaintiff’s daily life. Their violent loss caused substantial emotional harm to the Plaintiff, who cared for and relied on them. The Defendant’s actions stripped the Plaintiff of not only her property but also the comfort and livelihood these animals provided.

Financially, the loss is significant. These 15 animals had inherent value as contributors to the Plaintiff’s farm operations and future economic potential. The Defendant attempts to minimize this, suggesting replacement costs are trivial, but this view ignores the long-term impact of such a large-scale loss.

Emotionally, the harm cannot be overstated. The sudden and brutal killing of these animals caused deep distress to the Plaintiff, who had invested her time, care, and resources in raising and maintaining them.

This case is not only about compensation but also about accountability. The Defendant’s deliberate actions require this court to send a clear message: malicious destruction of property and harm to others will not be tolerated. The Plaintiff seeks appropriate compenatory damages as well as punitive damages, to deter such behavior in the future

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Denied

1. The plaintiff did provided the evidence requests in closed court. I am not going to hold the late filing against them as they had a real life to attend to.

2. The claim being made is Emotional Damage AND Financial Loss. Even without the emotional damage they would still have a claim. I do not buy this argument against emotional damages as they clearly were using the animals for financial gain due to claims of financial loss. Also a reasonable person does not only suffer emotional damages when emotionally attached to the animals, they may also suffer it when they suffer financial losses.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to post opening statements

Your Honour,
Can we proceed further

 

[ko531]

The defendant has 72 hours to post their opening statement

 

[Omegabiebel]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff suddenly asks for compensatory damages in their opening statement but this was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint. This basically an amendment to complaint, and since amendments cannot be made after discovery according to court rule 3.3, the Defense requests the parts mentioning compensation to be struck. We would additionally like to point out that we may have chosen another strategy or requested/submitted additional evidence if the compensation was mentioned in the complaint.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Emotional harm based on a strong emotional connection​

From exhibits D-022 until D-035, it is exceedingly clear that this is a commercial mass-producing farm. This implies that these animals are by definition replaceable. They only live for as long as needed, after that they are killed for their products. The defence would also like to point out that 27+ animals were killed by fire or entity cramming, which suggests that the Plaintiff neglected these animals by failing to provide a safe enclosure for these animals. The defence must therefore strongly urge the court to reject the notion of emotional harm based on a strong emotional bond since there is a plethora of evidence indicating otherwise.

Financial loss​

The plaintiff was mostly using the drops of animals. Since you can’t kill an animal multiple times, there is no long term economic potential the Defendant lost out on. The plaintiff used the animal products to craft several edible items. The defence has calculated the average price of the beef and chicken used in these recipes and it is clear from these calculations that the maximum financial loss is still minimal.
A financial loss of such little magnitude cannot reasonably cause emotional harm, let alone to the extent that punitive damages are warranted.

Conclusion​

As determined by the Legal Damages act paragraph (5)(1)(a), punitive damages are for deterring outrageous conduct. This means that even if there is emotional harm and/or financial loss this must raise to the level of being outrageous. The character of the defendant must also be taken into account, and on that point the defence would like to mention that the defendant had a clean criminal record before the killings as shown by D-020.

On the point of accountability, this has already happened. The defendant was fined by the DHS for the killings and the plaintiff was compensated with an unfine.

The plaintiff also suddenly asks for compensation even though this wasn’t mentioned in the complaint. The defence believes that the Court should reject this award as this is basically amending the complaint outside of the period where this is allowed.

 

[BlestSnow636130]

The defendant has 72 hours to post their opening statement

Your Honour may we move forward

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff suddenly asks for compensatory damages in their opening statement but this was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint. This basically an amendment to complaint, and since amendments cannot be made after discovery according to court rule 3.3, the Defense requests the parts mentioning compensation to be struck. We would additionally like to point out that we may have chosen another strategy or requested/submitted additional evidence if the compensation was mentioned in the complaint.

Overruled. Even though they said compensation damages they did not actually amend their complaint so I will not strike it. I will advise the plaintiff to talk about the damages in their complaint in their closing.


The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Closing statement

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Overruled. Even though they said compensation damages they did not actually amend their complaint so I will not strike it. I will advise the plaintiff to talk about the damages in their complaint in their closing.


The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Closing statement

Your Honour,
What about the witness testimony
as per court rules and procedures witness testimony and cross examination has to be done first

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,
What about the witness testimony
as per court rules and procedures witness testimony and cross examination has to be done first

I was just about to say something, but you beat me to it. I am sorry I just woke up and still a bit tired.

I will issue summons in a bit

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Marissa4 and @asexualdinosaur is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Marissa4 v. Splashyboi74 [2024] DCR 42

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.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your Honour, I am Identifying myself as AsexualDinosaur, and I am present before the court.

 

[Marissa4]

Your Honour, I, Marissa4, am present

 

[ko531]

The Plaintiff can start questioning their witness

 

[Omegabiebel]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, it has been more than 72 hours since the plaintiff could start asking questions to their witness. This far exceeds the 24 hours allowed under Court Rule 6.6. The defense therefore requests the plaintiffs right to ask questions to their witness be forfeit and allow the defense to start questioning the witnesses. The defense also requests for any question from the plaintiff to their witness that comes after this objection to be struck.

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, it has been more than 72 hours since the plaintiff could start asking questions to their witness. This far exceeds the 24 hours allowed under Court Rule 6.6. The defense therefore requests the plaintiffs right to ask questions to their witness be forfeit and allow the defense to start questioning the witnesses. The defense also requests for any question from the plaintiff to their witness that comes after this objection to be struck.

Overruled I am going to give the Plaintiff a final 24 hours to question their witness otherwise they will be held in contempt for wasting this court's time.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Motion

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

The plaintiff has already exceeded the 72 hour mark. Even a 24 or even a 48 hour extension that was granted where a reason is given, would have passed already. Now the court has ultimately given the plaintiff a total of 4 full days to come up with questions for their own witness, without any explanation or reason whatsoever needed from the plaintiff. The defense would also like to point out that there are two lawyers working for the plaintiff. The defense believes this is excessive and therefore respectfully asks the Court to reconsider their original ruling.

 

[BlestSnow636130]

1. Describe your bond with the animals. Were they more than just farm animals to you?
2. How did you feel when you discovered the animals had been killed?

5. Did this incident impact your ability to focus on daily activities or work or did it ever make you think about quitting your work
6. How do you feel knowing the Defendant intentionally killed the animals?
7. Did you name or treat any of these animals as companions rather than just farm property?
10. Do you believe the Defendant’s actions were cruel or unnecessary? How has this affected you
11. How did the loss of profit due to the murder of animals impact your emotions

 

[Marissa4]

1. Describe your bond with the animals. Were they more than just farm animals to you?
Yes they were more than just farm animals to me. I took care of them and watched them grow. i enjoyed being able to give them the freedom to roam around in their pastures. I enjoyed their company whenever i was on my farm (which is a lot of the time i'm online). I was proud that i was able to take care of them and feed them my own home-grown crops, making sure that they got the best quality of food.

2. How did you feel when you discovered the animals had been killed?
I was in shock that it had happened again. It made me sad that someone decided to enter my property just to kill these innocent animals. their lifes were taken away from them. i couldnt believe that someone decides to just kill someone elses animals for fun. what i had build up with my animals was gone. I wish i could have avoided it. They did not deserve to end like this when they should have had more time to roam around and enjoy the fresh air.

5. Did this incident impact your ability to focus on daily activities or work or did it ever make you think about quitting your work
Yes it did. I was doubting whether or not to get animals again. I do not want to fear entering my property every time, because i never know whether my animals are still there or not. I do not want to have to grief the loss of my animals every time they get killed by others. Not knowing what their end looked like is very upsetting.

6. How do you feel knowing the Defendant intentionally killed the animals?
It mostly upsets me. I do not understand why someone gets joy out of killing someone elses animals. It also makes me mad, because this is the second time the Defendant has killed my animals. I even feel regret, that i did not sue them the first time.

7. Did you name or treat any of these animals as companions rather than just farm property?
Yes, i made sure to hand feed them the best quality of food there was. I enjoyed their company whenever i was working on my farm. Even when i was working on my crops, i enjoyed hearing them and not having to feel alone.

10. Do you believe the Defendant’s actions were cruel or unnecessary? How has this affected you
Yes I believe it was both cruel or unnecessary. This was the second time this person has killed my animals. The first time I decided not to sue, as i wanted to believe that this would not happen again. But after hearing that he killed my animals again I decided to sue. I could not let this happen to my animals again. If he really needed the animal products he should have just gotten his own animals. I feel like he deliberately killed them again. Im not sure if he even did it for the products or just to hurt me. Why would someone kill other peoples' animals for fun? Why?

11. How did the loss of profit due to the murder of animals impact your emotions
I was very proud of everything i built up from the ground. having my animals killed, and thus also suffering financial damages was really upsetting. Not only was the fact that someone killed my animals upsetting, knowing that this also made it harder for me to make money. I had to get new eggs and made the decision to spend resources on making a stronger enclosure, that unfortunately also takes away some of their freedom. I am sad that i had to make that decision, as that is not something i want for my animals

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

The plaintiff has already exceeded the 72 hour mark. Even a 24 or even a 48 hour extension that was granted where a reason is given, would have passed already. Now the court has ultimately given the plaintiff a total of 4 full days to come up with questions for their own witness, without any explanation or reason whatsoever needed from the plaintiff. The defense would also like to point out that there are two lawyers working for the plaintiff. The defense believes this is excessive and therefore respectfully asks the Court to reconsider their original ruling.

Overruled as the witness has now been questioned.

The Defense can now Cross examine the witness if they please.

 

[Omegabiebel]

1. Did you ever name the killed animals?
2. If yes, did you write these names down anywhere? Did you tell them to someone?
3. How does this “special bond” allow you to kill the animals for their products?
4. Do you feel any remorse or distress for killing at least 218 animals in about a month?
5. Did you ever calculate or estimate the financial loss? If yes, please give me a rough overview of how you did that?
6. Did you ever calculate or estimate the financial resources needed to reinforce the enclosure? If yes, please give me a rough overview of how you did that?
7. What do you mean by “quality” of the food you gave your animals?
8. Do you need to feed animals in Minecraft or in DC for another purpose than breeding? Is this even possible?
9. How do you “hand feed” an animal in minecraft for another purpose than breeding?
10. “Hand feeding” implies another method of feeding. Is there another method of feeding an animal other than right clicking the animal?
11. How did these kills by fire happen?
12. Did you ever put the animals in a small enclosure?
13. How did these kills by cramming happen?
14. Do you feel any remorse or distress from the cramming kills?

NOTE: More questions may follow based on witness response.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Based on the submitted evidence of this case, the witness cannot know if the defendant killed the animals “for fun”. The witness even admits to not knowing the reason behind the animal kills. The defense would like to request the parts mentioning killing the animals “for fun” to be struck.

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Based on the submitted evidence of this case, the witness cannot know if the defendant killed the animals “for fun”. The witness even admits to not knowing the reason behind the animal kills. The defense would like to request the parts mentioning killing the animals “for fun” to be struck.

Sustained

 

[Marissa4]

1. No, i did not
2. See previous reply
3. Not sure what exactly you are referring to with ''special bond''. But killing the animals is part of my job. It isn't nice to do. But i do it knowing that i did my best to care for them.
4. Like i said, it is part of my job. But do i enjoy it or think it's fun, no.
5. No, i did not
6. No, i did not, but I added 3 spruce fence gates, 143 spruce fences and 1008 jungle slabs.
7. With the quality i mean that i know where the food is produced. All of the food i give my animals is produced on my own farm, in the open air.
8. No you do not need to, but this is actually possible. the younger animals can be fed as well
9. right click on the animal with the food in your hand.
10. No there isn't, sorry for the confusion
11. I kill my animals with an upgraded sword (that includes fire), killing animals is bad either way, but i want it to happen as quick as possible, so that they had minimal suffering. I am planning on upgrading it some more to minimize suffering.
12. No, i did not put them in any small enclosures
13. At one point when breeding some animals started dying because they were all following me. at that point i immediately stopped breeding them. After this happened i make sure to avoid this from happening again.
14. Yes i do. I feel very bad that this happened and i wish i could have undone this. I did not want them to end like this. It really upset me when i saw them dying like that

 

[Omegabiebel]

1. No, i did not
2. See previous reply
3. Not sure what exactly you are referring to with ''special bond''. But killing the animals is part of my job. It isn't nice to do. But i do it knowing that i did my best to care for them.
4. Like i said, it is part of my job. But do i enjoy it or think it's fun, no.
5. No, i did not
6. No, i did not, but I added 3 spruce fence gates, 143 spruce fences and 1008 jungle slabs.
7. No you do not need to, but this is actually possible. the younger animals can be fed as well
8. right click on the animal with the food in your hand.
9. No there isn't, sorry for the confusion
10. I kill my animals with an upgraded sword (that includes fire), killing animals is bad either way, but i want it to happen as quick as possible, so that they had minimal suffering. I am planning on upgrading it some more to minimize suffering.
11. No, i did not put them in any small enclosures
12. At one point when breeding some animals started dying because they were all following me. at that point i immediately stopped breeding them. After this happened i make sure to avoid this from happening again.
13. Yes i do. I feel very bad that this happened and i wish i could have undone this. I did not want them to end like this. It really upset me when i saw them dying like that

Could you recheck your answers because I asked 14 questions, and I got 13 answers. Additionally some of the answers are pretty weird when paired with the question.

 

[Marissa4]

Could you recheck your answers because I asked 14 questions, and I got 13 answers. Additionally some of the answers are pretty weird when paired with the question.

My apologies, i edited the post. I missed question 7. Everything should be correct now.

 

[Omegabiebel]

For @asexualdinosaur:
1. Do you verify that these coreprotect logs are truthful and real?
2. Did Marissa4 use or rename a nametag anywhere on the property?

 

[Omegabiebel]

for @Marissa4:
15. How much were you compensated by the DHS/DOJ/other government institution for each killed animal? How much was this in total?
16. Did this cover the costs you incurred? Did it cover more than these costs?
17. Since killing animals is such an unpleasant part of your job, why choose this job?
18. Did you put fire aspect on your sword so that the animal drops would be instantly cooked?
19. How much would it cost in normal operations through /find to get the resources needed to reinforce the enclosure?
20. How did you get to such a specific number of resources needed to reinforce the enclosure?
21. Is there any difference in the food that is produced on an open farm in contrast to food that is grown on a hidden farm in the city for example? Is this difference observable in any way?
22. How can you get emotional harm from financial loss if you do not know the amount that was lost?
23. Doesn't it hurt more for the animal to have to get hit multiple times while being burned alive by the enchant than to just hit the same amount of times?

 

[Marissa4]

15. I do not know where i can find this, if you can let me know i can check this
16. See previous reply
17. Because I enjoy being able to build something from scratch. I also like the plots on willow and the custom crops and foods in this server, thats why i decided to start a farm.
18. Yes
19. Atm only the jungle slabs are available through /find. these cost 0,10 per slab, so for the roof that is $100,80. For the fence and gates there is nothing for sale at this moment, so i am not able to give you a calculation on those resources
20. I counted the fence and gates added, and then multiplied the length with the width so that i knew the amount of slabs needed for the roof.
21. No, this is more for the rp aspect
22. Because i know that it slows the process at which im building up my business, and i had to get new spawn eggs again
23. I only need to hit the animal once in order for them to get killed, so no, i dont believe that makes a difference

 

[Omegabiebel]

For question 15, you should have gotten a dm from the "Server" bot. If that is not possible the unfine can be requested from DHS I believe.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

For @asexualdinosaur:
1. Do you verify that these coreprotect logs are truthful and real?
2. Did Marissa4 use or rename a nametag anywhere on the property?

1. Yes.
2. No.

 

[Omegabiebel]

Your Honor since witness Marissa4 has trouble finding information of this fact, and in the interest of time, the defense would like to submit exhibits D-043 (the photo) and D-044(the link) from the November government budget transcript. This report was released on the 8th of December and thus could not be submitted in the discovery stage.

Budget Report Thread 'Budget Report - NOVEMBER 2024'

Dec 7, 2024

BUDGET REPORT

The purpose of the Budget Report is to increase fiscal transparency. This information is provided in good faith and although it may be listed here as a goal, it may not occur. This report simply outlines Government balances and expenditures.

DECEMBER 2024 APPROPRIATIONS

On 30 November 2024, President UnityMaster signed the Appropriations Act - DEC 2024 to allocate funding for the federal government. The allocations were as follows:

Department of State (DOS): $199,999.99;
Department of Homeland Security...

• Dept. State
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Budget Reports

 

[Marissa4]

15.
Server
APP
— 11/1/2024 8:45 PM
DHS » Marissa4 has been unfined $1500 by HellsideBurnton.

HSBurnton — 11/1/2024 8:47 PM
Animal murder compensations for x15 farm animals (edited)

Server
APP
— 11/1/2024 8:50 PM
DHS » Marissa4 has been unfined $2000 by HellsideBurnton.

HSBurnton — 11/1/2024 8:50 PM
Animal Murder Compensation for x20 Animals

I am not sure as to why I got unfined twice, but bc 15 animals were killed i assume the top one is the correct one
16. i do not know whether it covered all the costs that were incurred, as i do not have an overview of the financial loss

 

[ko531]

Since it seems Witness Questioning is over. We will proceed to Closing Statements.

Due to it being Christmas eve, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to post their closing statements starting on Dec 26th.

 

[BlestSnow636130]

CLOSING ARGUMENT


DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Your Honor,


This case is fundamentally about responsibility, accountability, and the need for deterrence against malicious and harmful actions. On October 15, 2024, the Defendant, SplashyBoi74, intentionally entered the Plaintiff’s property and killed 15 animals belonging to the Plaintiff, Marissa4. These were not random or accidental deaths—they were deliberate and malicious acts that caused significant emotional and financial harm.


Emotional Harm


The Plaintiff has testified extensively about the emotional bond she shared with her animals. These were not mere farming assets but living beings cared for and nurtured by the Plaintiff. The Defendant has tried to argue that these animals were replaceable and a routine part of farm life, but this is a gross oversimplification.


The Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrated that these animals were an integral part of her daily life. She fed them her home-grown crops, ensured they lived in the best conditions she could provide, and derived both companionship and pride from their care. Their sudden and brutal loss left her distraught and questioning her ability to continue her farming activities.


Furthermore, this was not the first time the Defendant had harmed the Plaintiff’s animals. The Plaintiff’s feelings of betrayal and distress were magnified by the repeated nature of the Defendant’s actions, making this a case of sustained emotional trauma, not a one-time incident.


Financial Harm


The Defendant has attempted to minimize the financial loss caused by the killings, arguing that the Plaintiff’s costs were negligible. However, the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence demonstrate otherwise.


1. Replacement Costs: While the Defendant claims that spawn eggs are inexpensive, they ignore the cumulative cost and effort required to rebuild a farm after such a loss. The Plaintiff had to purchase new spawn eggs, which slowed her business operations and increased her workload.


2. Reinforcement Costs: After this incident, the Plaintiff had to invest in reinforcing her animal enclosures with additional fences and slabs, a cost that would not have been necessary without the Defendant’s actions.


3. I recognize that the defendant will talk about the government compensation so i would like to address it here. The compensation received by the government is seperate from what we are asking here. Here we are asking for punitive damages. Which are completely seperate from what we were given by the government


While the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff did not calculate exact losses, this does not negate the real financial impact she experienced. The Defendant’s attempt to downplay these damages does not absolve them of responsibility for causing the harm.


Malicious Intent and Need for Deterrence


The Defendant’s actions were not accidental but intentional, as evidenced by the Defendant’s own admission of guilt. Despite knowing the Plaintiff’s animals were personal property, the Defendant killed them for reasons that can only be described as malicious or, at best, reckless.


This is not simply a matter of restitution—it is a matter of justice and deterrence. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages not just to recover what was lost but to send a clear message: such harmful actions cannot and will not be tolerated in our community. Punitive damages are specifically designed for cases like this, where the Defendant’s behavior is so egregious that it requires additional measures to prevent recurrence.


Conclusion


Your Honor, this case is about more than just financial compensation—it is about fairness and holding the Defendant accountable for the harm they have caused. The Plaintiff has proven, through both testimony and evidence, that she suffered significant emotional and financial harm due to the Defendant’s malicious actions.


We respectfully request that the Court:





2. Award punitive damages to deter the Defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future.


3. Recognize the emotional toll that the Defendant’s actions have had on the Plaintiff.


The Defendant must be held accountable for their deliberate and harmful behavior. The Plaintiff deserves justice, and this Court has the opportunity to deliver it.


Thank you.

 

[ko531]

The defense has 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[BlestSnow636130]

Edit:
Sorry you honour added the compensatory damages with mistake

 

[Omegabiebel]

Your honor, I would like to ask for a 48 hour extension. I was busy with my exams and I havent been able to work on my closing statement.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, I would like to ask for a 48 hour extension. I was busy with my exams and I havent been able to work on my closing statement.

Granted

 

[Omegabiebel]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The defense believes that the plaintiff is trying to do the work of the DOJ as a private citizen. The defense would like to point out that their previous case on this issue was Sua Sponte dismissed because of exactly this issue. The defense agrees that there is a need to hold people accountable for their misdeeds and crimes, and this was done by the DHS convicting my client for the animal killings. A private citizen should not interfere with this.

The defense would like to underscore that the defendant had a spotless criminal record before this case, as seen in exhibit D-020. The plaintiff also alleged this was the second time that the defendant killed animals of the plaintiff, but has not submitted any proof. The defendant was also never convicted of this since their criminal record is clean. The witness didn’t recognise the second unfine in the November budget report. The defense therefore urges the court to disregard this allegation.

The evidence on the side of the plaintiff is thin. The only evidence that might be seen as supporting the claims of relief is the testimony of the plaintiff themselves. This is undoubtedly biased as seen from the use of vocabulary in their testimony and the contradiction that was made and subsequently struck.

Emotional harm
The plaintiff testified extensively about the emotional bond they had with the animals. However the court should keep in mind that the plaintiff killed 218 animals in a single month. They testify that it absolutely broke their heart seeing that these animals were killed, but almost brushes off that they killed about 7 animals per day on average in that month. The defense feels this is at least contradictory since the emotional harm must rise to the point of outrageousness, but these were animals that were regularly killed themselves.

Financial harm
The plaintiff argues a “long term impact of such a large scale loss” in their opening statement, but has not done any calculations or even the most basic of estimates for the alleged extreme losses. The plaintiff themself even testified to this. Only when the defense actually asked for any costs that were incurred, does the plaintiff estimate these based on a basic calculation, not any actual costs that were recorded at the time they happened. How can you experience emotional distress on a financial loss when you don’t even know the financial loss?
Calculations done by the defense show clear as day that the harm was clearly compensated even when taking a wide maximum of the costs. The biggest cost is the purchase of new spawn eggs for 60 dollars each(for a total of $900). This purchase would be optional since the same effect can be achieved by breeding cows which were left on the farm or to get animal spawn eggs from the wild since the plaintiff has the “farmer” job. The plaintiff alleges that spawn eggs were used but has not provided any proof that this actually happened.
The lost animal drops itself make for a minimal cost, as calculated in closed court.
The sum of all costs like the spawn eggs, the animal drops and the reinforcements stays well under the compensation received from the government. The defense would even contend that a profit of about $400 was made on this, since the compensation was $1500
The defense does not agree that the government compensation does not play a role. The court will determine if the financial loss had an impact to the point of outrageousness on the financial and emotional position of the plaintiff. After government compensation there was not financial harm, but even a financial benefit. The defense therefore urges the court to reject the notion of financial harm and emotional distress based on the alleged financial harm, especially not to the point of outrageousness.

The plaintiff also talks about the punitive damages recovering what was lost, but this is absolutely not the nature of these damages. That is what compensatory damages are for, of which there are none requested. This underscores once again the private citizen prosecution argument. It is also contradictory to the plaintiffs argument that the government compensation is separate, since this is not about compensation.

To conclude, the plaintiff has submitted not enough evidence at all to prove the high bar of “outrageous”. They make a lot of allegations and arguments but backs them with thin evidence/biased testimony and most of the time with no evidence at all.

Finally, the defense would like to thank the court and the plaintiff. Solid Law wishes them both a Happy New Year.

 

[ko531]

This case is now in recess pending a verdict

 

[ko531]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant unlawfully killed 15 of their animals.
2. This act has caused Financial loss and emotional distress for the plaintiff
3. The actions by the defendant are heinous and need to be deterred.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. No emotional harm had occurred shown by the lack of attachment from the routine killing of the animals by the plaintiff
2. The plaintiff has failed to prove any financial harm apart from their own testimony
3. there is not enough evidence to warrant outrageous behavior for punitive damages to be granted.

III. THE COURT OPINION

Both sides of this case focused heavily on the emotional and financial damages. Whether or not these damages did occur is not enough for damages to be granted as no compensatory damages were request, only punitive. This leaves an extra burden for the plaintiff to prove, not only did the damages occur but were the damages outrageous.

For emotional damages, with the evidence provided I find little to none. Clearly there seemed to be no direct relationship between the plaintiff and the animals except for business. The constant slaughtering of these animals show this. The animals were only used for commercial purposes.

For financial damages it is easy to see that they did occur. The killing of these animals disrupted the plaintiffs business practices and stunted their flow of income. Were these damages outrageous? I can not say they were. Only 15 animals were killed which is not enough for a person to live off of completely by itself and finally with the compensation already provide by the DHS, this commercial practices was not stunted for very long.

IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Defense.

The District Court thanks all involved.