Lawsuit: Pending megaprogam3r v. Osirisx88 [2026] DCR 57

[Cr4zyVine]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

megaprogam3r
Plaintiff

v.

Osirisx88
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On May 25th, 2026, at approximately 8:07AM, the Defendant, Osirisx88, trespassed into the office of 3MK & Associates, located at C231 Eapt-2, which was under renovation. Upon trespassing, the Defendant pulled out a firearm, and shot the Plaintiff, megaprogam3r, who was a builder designated to the renovation of the office, multiple times.

The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages arising from Assault under the Criminal Code Act.

I. PARTIES

1. megaprogam3r, Plaintiff.
2. Osirisx88, Defendant.
3. JackOfVine of 3MK & Associates, legal representative for the Plaintiff.

II. FACTS

1. The offices of 3MK & Associates, located at C231 Eapt-2, are currently under renovation.
2. On May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM, the Defendant, Osirisx88, entered into the renovation site of C231 Eapt-2, without permission.
3. The Plaintiff, megaprogam3r, is a builder tasked with the renovation of the offices of 3MK & Associates.
4. The Plaintiff was in the renovation site on May 25, 2026, at approximately 8:07 AM.
5. The Defendant aimed and fired an assault weapon at the Plaintiff multiple times.
6. The Plaintiff did not consent to being aimed at or fired upon.
7. The Defendant's conduct placed the Plaintiff in a position of danger.
8. The incident caused the Plaintiff fear, distress, disruption, and placed the Plaintiff in danger.
9. A witness has supporting screenshots showing the Defendant's conduct.
10. The Plaintiff has formally retained JackOfVine of 3MK & Associates as legal counsel in this matter.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM ASSAULT UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT

1. The Plaintiff brings this claim for civil damages arising from Assault under the Criminal Code Act.

2. Relevant Law: Criminal Code Act, Part IV, Section 1 - Assault:

"A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) intentionally hits another player, causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts; or
(b) places another player in a position of danger, including but not limited to pointing a weapon at them."

3. The Defendant's conduct satisfies subsection (b) because the Defendant fired an assault weapon at the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff does not need to prove a loss of health under subsection (b), because subsection (b) is based on placing another player in a position of danger.

CLAIM II: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

6. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 1 - Applicability:

"The definitions and rules for damages in this Part apply to all civil matters under this Code, including claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct."

7. The Plaintiff is not asking this Court to criminally punish the Defendant. The Plaintiff is asking for civil damages based on the Defendant's criminal conduct toward the Plaintiff.

CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

8. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages.

9. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Nominal Damages:

"Nominal damages are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages."

10. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 - Award:

"Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500."

11. The Plaintiff has established a legal cause of action because the Defendant’s conduct constituted Assault by placing the Plaintiff in a position of danger.

12. Because the Plaintiff did not suffer a specific calculable financial loss, nominal damages are appropriate to recognize the legal harm caused by the Defendant’s conduct.

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE REDMONT CIVIL CODE ACT

13. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

14. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Punitive Damages:

"Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future."

15. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Award:

"Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous."

16. Relevant Law: Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3 - Outrageous Conduct:

"Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others.”

17. The Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because the Defendant aimed and fired an assault weapon at the Plaintiff, creating a serious risk of death or substantial harm.

18. The Defendant’s conduct therefore demonstrates reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s safety and justifies punitive damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $1,000 in nominal damages for the Defendant placing the Plaintiff in danger through Assault.
2. $1,500 in punitive damages for the Defendant’s reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s safety.
3. Total damages of $2,500.
4. Any applicable legal fees awarded to the prevailing party.
5. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001: Screenshot showing the Defendant entering the renovation site of the office of 3mk & Associates, located at C231 Eapt-2.

Spoiler: Screenshot showing the Defendant entering the renovation site of the office of 3mk & Associates, located at C231 Eapt-2.

P-002: Screenshot showing the Defendant firing an assault weapon at the Plaintiff in the renovation site.

Spoiler: Screenshot showing the Defendant firing an assault weapon at the Plaintiff in the renovation site.

P-003: Screenshot showing the Defendant firing the assault weapon at the Plaintiff a second time, moments after the first.

Spoiler: Screenshot showing the Defendant firing the assault weapon at the Plaintiff a second time, moments after the first.

VI. WITNESSES

1. 3mkTalal
Expected testimony: The witness may testify about the Defendant entering into the renovation site of the 3mk & Associates offices, aiming an assault weapon at the Plaintiff, firing an assault weapon at the Plaintiff multiple times, and the cause of fear, distress, disruption, and threat of harm caused by the incident.

VII. APPENDIX

1. The Criminal Code Act defines Assault as placing another player in a position of danger, including but not limited to pointing a weapon at them.
2. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows civil damages arising from criminal conduct.
3. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows nominal damages where a legal cause of action is established even without substantial loss.
4. The Redmont Civil Code Act allows punitive damages where the Defendant’s conduct is outrageous, including reckless disregard for the safety of others.
5. The District Court guide requires a lawyer representing a client to provide evidence that the client officially retained them.
6. The Court template requires parties, facts, claims for relief, prayer for relief, evidence, witnesses if applicable, and the perjury statement.

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.

The Plaintiff is represented by JackOfVine of 3MK & Associates. Proof of representation is attached as evidence.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

DATED: This 26th day of May 2026

 

[dearev]

Your honor i wish to file an amicus brief on how summary charges work

 

[Cr4zyVine]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully objects to the request as procedurally deficient.

Under Regulations of the Federal Court § 3.2, an application for leave to file an amicus curiae brief must state: (a) the movant’s interest in the subject matter of the case; (b) an affirmative statement that the movant has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case; and (c) that the proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue.

The movant’s request does not satisfy those requirements. It does not state the movant’s interest in the subject matter, does not affirmatively state that the movant has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of this case, and does not explain why the proposed brief is necessary to resolve a qualifying legal issue.

Further, this case is not a criminal prosecution or a request for summary criminal punishment. The Plaintiff seeks civil damages arising from criminal conduct. The Redmont Civil Code Act expressly recognizes civil damages arising from criminal conduct, and civil proceedings are independent of any criminal prosecution for the same facts.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the request for leave to file an amicus brief, or require the movant to submit a compliant application before any non-party filing is accepted.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully objects to the request as procedurally deficient.

Under Regulations of the Federal Court § 3.2, an application for leave to file an amicus curiae brief must state: (a) the movant’s interest in the subject matter of the case; (b) an affirmative statement that the movant has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case; and (c) that the proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue.

The movant’s request does not satisfy those requirements. It does not state the movant’s interest in the subject matter, does not affirmatively state that the movant has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of this case, and does not explain why the proposed brief is necessary to resolve a qualifying legal issue.

Further, this case is not a criminal prosecution or a request for summary criminal punishment. The Plaintiff seeks civil damages arising from criminal conduct. The Redmont Civil Code Act expressly recognizes civil damages arising from criminal conduct, and civil proceedings are independent of any criminal prosecution for the same facts.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the request for leave to file an amicus brief, or require the movant to submit a compliant application before any non-party filing is accepted.

This is the District Court, not the Federal Court counselor. Thus the majority of your statement is moot.

 

[Cr4zyVine]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff acknowledges the Court’s clarification and does not maintain that the Federal Court Regulations are binding procedure in this District Court matter.

The Plaintiff respectfully clarifies that its remaining concern is limited to relevance and scope. The proposed amicus request is described as a brief on “how summary charges work.” This case, however, is not a request for summary charges, a criminal prosecution, imprisonment, fines, or criminal punishment. It is a civil action seeking civil damages arising from alleged criminal conduct.

The Criminal Code Act is relevant only because Assault supplies the alleged unlawful conduct underlying the civil claim. The remedy requested is civil damages under the Redmont Civil Code Act, which expressly applies to civil damages arising from criminal conduct.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not ask the Court to decide the merits of any amicus argument before it is filed. The Plaintiff respectfully requests only that any permitted amicus brief be limited to issues directly relevant to this civil damages action, and that the Plaintiff be granted an opportunity to respond or move to strike any portion of the brief that attempts to reframe this matter as a criminal prosecution or summary charge proceeding.