Lawsuit: In Session MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

[MMiqa]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION


MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

rykazard
Defendant

COMPLAINT


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, had recently joined the Commonwealth of Redmont, having played for only approximately 3 hours over the course of 1 day. At the time of the incidents described herein, the Plaintiff was actively engaged in lawful gameplay in Aventura, working as a Fisher.


The Defendant, rykazard, committed two separate and distinct acts of aggression against the Plaintiff. First, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff while rendered invisible and wielding a mace — conduct that constitutes an intentional act of intimidation and assault. Fearing for their safety and acting in reasonable self-defence following prior attacks suffered at the hands of another player on the same day, the Plaintiff struck the Defendant once with bare hands solely to identify the attacker, and then fled into the water. Second, while the Plaintiff was peacefully fishing and presenting no threat, the Defendant — now visible — attacked the Plaintiff from behind, dealing approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's health in a single blow and launching them forcibly into the water.


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



I. PARTIES

MMiqa, Plaintiff.

rykazard, Defendant.



II. FACTS

1. On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, was present in Aventura, a designated city area of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. At the time of the incidents, the Plaintiff had been a member of the Commonwealth of Redmont for approximately 1 day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime.
3. The Plaintiff was actively performing their Fisher duties and engaging in lawful gameplay.
4. Earlier on the same day, the Plaintiff had been the victim of multiple unprovoked wrongful deaths at the hands of another player, ZachOfPotatoes10, establishing a reasonable basis for the Plaintiff to be in fear of further attacks in Aventura.
5. FIRST INCIDENT — Invisible Approach and Intimidation: The Defendant, rykazard, approached the Plaintiff while rendered invisible and wielding a mace, deliberately walking toward the Plaintiff in a threatening manner. (P-001, P-002, P-003)
6. An invisible player wielding a deadly weapon and approaching another player constitutes an intentional and threatening act — the Plaintiff could not see the attacker but was placed in immediate fear of unlawful physical contact.
7. Acting in reasonable self-defence and for the sole purpose of identifying the approaching threat, the Plaintiff struck the Defendant once with bare hands — the Plaintiff carried stone tools, all with full and unused durability, confirming the Plaintiff had no combat intent. The Plaintiff immediately identified the Defendant as rykazard and fled into the water to escape.
8. SECOND INCIDENT — Assault from Behind: After the Plaintiff had fled and resumed lawful gameplay as a Fisher, the Defendant — now visible — attacked the Plaintiff from behind with an unknown weapon, without any provocation or warning. (P-004, P-005, P-006)
9. The in-game system confirmed: "rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." (P-005, P-006)
10. The Defendant's single blow dealt approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's total health and sent the Plaintiff flying forcibly into the water, as evidenced by the Plaintiff's drastically reduced health bar visible in the screenshots.
11. The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no combat weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves against the Defendant's armed assault.
12. The Defendant's conduct — invisible intimidation followed by a later ambush from behind — demonstrates deliberate, calculated, and predatory intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


CLAIM I: ASSAULT — Criminal Code Act

1. The Criminal Code Act defines Assault as an intentional act that causes another player to apprehend immediate unlawful force, or the direct application of unlawful force to another player.
2. The Defendant committed assault against the Plaintiff on two separate occasions.
3. Count I: The Defendant approached the Plaintiff while invisible and armed with a mace, creating an immediate and reasonable apprehension of unlawful force in the Plaintiff.
4. Count II: The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff from behind with an unknown weapon, dealing approximately 80% health damage in a single blow and physically launching the Plaintiff into the water.
5. Each instance constitutes a separate count of Assault. The Plaintiff brings two counts of Assault against the Defendant.

CLAIM II: CIVIL DAMAGES ARISING FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 1

1. The Redmont Civil Code Act provides that civil damages may arise from criminal conduct.
2. The Defendant's two instances of assault against the Plaintiff constitute criminal conduct giving rise to civil damages.
3. Conviction of a criminal offence is not required for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit.

CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 4

1. Nominal damages are available where a legal cause of action has been established, even though the Plaintiff has suffered no substantial quantifiable loss.
2. The Plaintiff has established two counts of Assault against the Defendant.
3. The maximum nominal damages cap is $7,500.
4. The Plaintiff seeks $2,500 per count × 2 = $5,000 in nominal damages.

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 3

1. Punitive damages are available where the Defendant's conduct was outrageous.
2. 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.
3. The Defendant's conduct was outrageous for the following reasons:

(a) The Defendant deliberately exploited the invisibility mechanic to approach and intimidate the Plaintiff — using an unfair tactical advantage to place a defenceless new player in fear.


(b) The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff from behind — a calculated and cowardly act that denied the Plaintiff any opportunity to react or defend themselves.


(c) The Defendant deliberately targeted a brand new player who had been on the server for only 1 day with only 3 hours of playtime, with no weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves.


(d) The Defendant's attacks occurred on the Plaintiff's very first day in Redmont, and in the context of the Plaintiff having already been victimised by multiple murders by another player on the same day — demonstrating a complete and callous disregard for the Plaintiff's safety and wellbeing.


(e) The two-stage nature of the attack — first invisible intimidation, then a later ambush from behind — demonstrates premeditation and deliberate predatory conduct, not a momentary lapse of judgment.

1. The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 in punitive damages.

CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES — LOSS OF ENJOYMENT — Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 5

1. Loss of Enjoyment is available where 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.
2. The Plaintiff had just begun their first day in the Commonwealth of Redmont, intending to work as a Fisher and enjoy the server for the first time.
3. The Defendant's two acts of assault — invisible intimidation followed by an ambush delivering 80% health damage — on the Plaintiff's very first day severely and permanently diminished the Plaintiff's first experience in Redmont.
4. The Plaintiff was unable to perform their Fisher duties safely as a result of the Defendant's conduct.
5. A reasonable person in the same circumstances — subjected to invisible stalking and a devastating ambush attack as a brand new defenceless player on their very first day — would experience a significant and lasting loss of enjoyment of the server.
6. As punitive damages are also being sought in this matter, the consequential damages cap of $50,000 does not apply per the Redmont Civil Code Act.
7. The Plaintiff seeks $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief against the Defendant:

• $5,000 in nominal damages ($2,500 per count of Assault × 2 counts)
• $15,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's outrageous, premeditated, and predatory conduct
• $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
• Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

TOTAL: $40,000
V. EVIDENCE


P-001: Screenshot showing the Plaintiff in Aventura at 2:36 AM with full health, moments before the Defendant's invisible approach.

P-002: Screenshot showing the Defendant rykazard approaching the Plaintiff while invisible and wielding a mace after seeing the Plaintiff in P-001.

P-003: Screenshot confirming the Defendant's continued assault and the Plaintiff's location in Aventura.

P-004: Screenshot confirming the Plaintiff's presence in Aventura at 2:36 AM and the context of the first incident.

P-005: Screenshot at 4:02 AM confirming "rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself" — confirming the Defendant initiated the second unprovoked assault.

P-006: Screenshot at 4:03 AM confirming the Defendant's assault in Aventura and the Plaintiff's critically depleted health as a result of the Defendant's single blow.

VI. WITNESSES

MMiqa — The Plaintiff may testify about the two unprovoked assaults, the Defendant's use of invisibility during the first incident, the ambush from behind during the second incident, the Plaintiff's status as a brand new player with no means of adequate defence, the inability to perform Fisher duties safely, and the significant loss of enjoyment caused by the Defendant's conduct on the Plaintiff's very first day in Redmont.


VII. REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Redmont Bar Association and is representing themselves in this matter.



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 2nd day of June, 2026

 

[Kaiserin_]

Writ of Summons

@rykazard is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Mmiqa v. Rykazard [2026] DCR 69.

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.

 

[MaxvEtten]

Your Honor, I will be representing the Defendant in this legal matter.

Spoiler: Proof Of Representation

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your Honor, I will be representing the Defendant in this legal matter.

Spoiler: Proof Of Representation

View attachment 85868
View attachment 85869

You have 48 hours to produce an Answer to Complaint.

 

[MaxvEtten]

Answer to Complaint

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

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

rykazard
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff, MMiqa, was present in Aventura, a designated city area of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that at the time of the incidents, the Plaintiff had been a member of the Commonwealth of Redmont for approximately 1 day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime.
3. The Defendant DOES NOT CONTEST that the Plaintiff was actively performing their Fisher duties and engaging in lawful gameplay.
4. The Defendant DOES NOT CONTEST that earlier on the same day, the Plaintiff had been the victim of multiple unprovoked wrongful deaths at the hands of another player, ZachOfPotatoes10, establishing a reasonable basis for the Plaintiff to be in fear of further attacks in Aventura.
5. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Defendant, rykazard, approached the Plaintiff while rendered invisible and wielding a mace, however The Defendant DENIES that he was deliberately walking toward the Plaintiff in a threatening manner.
6. The Defendant DENIES that an invisible player wielding a deadly weapon and approaching another player constitutes an intentional and threatening act — the Plaintiff could not see the attacker but was placed in immediate fear of unlawful physical contact.
7. The Defendant DENIES that acting in reasonable self-defence and for the sole purpose of identifying the approaching threat, the Plaintiff struck the Defendant once with bare hands — the Plaintiff carried stone tools, all with full and unused durability, confirming the Plaintiff had no combat intent. The Plaintiff immediately identified the Defendant as rykazard and fled into the water to escape.
8. The Defendant AFFIRMS that after the Plaintiff had fled and resumed lawful gameplay as a Fisher, the Defendant — now visible — attacked the Plaintiff from behind with an unknown weapon, however The Defendant DENIES that it was without any provocation or warning.
9. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the in-game system confirmed: "rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself."
10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Defendant's single blow dealt approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's total health and sent the Plaintiff flying forcibly into the water, as evidenced by the Plaintiff's drastically reduced health bar visible in the screenshots.
11. The Defendant DOES NOT CONTEST that the Plaintiff was a brand new player with no combat weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves against the Defendant's armed assault.
12. The Defendant DENIES that the Defendant's conduct — invisible intimidation followed by a later ambush from behind — demonstrates deliberate, calculated, and predatory intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff.

II. DEFENCES

1. Claim I: Asault:
a. Count I: Since the Defendant did not hit the Plaintiff, a valid basis for Assault does not exist. On top of that, there was no real threat, since the Defendant was just walking by with no intention of assaulting the Plaintiff.
b. Count II: While the Defendant did hit the Plaintiff, it was not without provocation, since the defendant atacked him earlier. While the Defendant did hit the Plaintiff, he did not die, did not lose any property, and has not demonstrated any lasting harm. The Plaintiff's claim greatly exaggerates the actual consequences of the encounter. Lastly, The Plaintiff claims that Count II was a coordinated campaign of intimidation, the Plaintiff has produced no evidence demonstrating premeditation, planning, or an intent to terrorize the Plaintiff.

2. Claim IV: Punitive Damages: Punitive damages do not apply here, since the Defendant’s conduct was not outrageous. The Defendant only hit the Plaintiff once, and did not chase the Defendant at all, showing no signs of clear intent to murder him. It was a simple hit, not an action that creates a valid basis for punitive damages.

3. Claim V: Consequential Damages - Loss of enjoyment: Loss of enjoyment claims should not apply here, for a multitude of reasons:
a. Loss of enjoyment does not suddenly appear after a simple hit without any losses. The Plaintiff was still able to play normally after the altercation.
b. Since the incident, the Plaintiff has played for over 48 hours, giving no signs of loss of enjoyment.
c. Loss of enjoyment requires that an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm. There were no losses proven, so the Defendant is fully capable of engaging in any activity in the way he could before the incident.

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 14th day of June 2026.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Thank you. Discovery shall now begin for a period of 5 days, or until otherwise ended by mutual agreement.

 

[MMiqa]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — PLAINTIFF

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following additional evidence pursuant to Rule 4.2:

P-007: Playtime records via /about MMiqa — directly rebutting the Defendant's unsubstantiated claim that the Plaintiff has played for over 48 hours since the incident.

The Plaintiff also clarifies the timeline:
- First incident: rykazard approached while invisible and wielding a mace. Plaintiff touched Defendant once with bare hands to identify the attacker, then immediately fled into water. This event happened at 02:36 AM in-game time.(P-001 through P-004)
- Approximately 1.5 in-game hours later (around 04:02 AM): rykazard returned and attacked from behind — a completely separate incident. The Defendant's own Answer confirms this at Points 5 and 8.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LACK OF EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's claim in Defence III(b) that "since the incident, the Plaintiff has played for over 48 hours, giving no signs of loss of enjoyment."

The Defendant has provided no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. No playtime records, no screenshots, no server data has been submitted. This is an unsubstantiated assertion and should be disregarded by the Court entirely. The Plaintiff's playtime records submitted as P-005 directly contradict this claim.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff joined the server on June 1, 2026. The incident occurred on June 2, 2026 — the Plaintiff's very first full day on the server, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime at the time of the attack. The Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff has since played for over 48 hours is not only unsupported by any evidence, but is directly contradicted by the Plaintiff's playtime records.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — DEFENCE I(a) — COUNT I — LACK OF CLAIM

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's claim in Defence I(a) that "since the Defendant did not hit the Plaintiff, a valid basis for Assault does not exist" and that "there was no real threat, since the Defendant was just walking by."

Criminal Code Act Part IV Section 1 defines Assault as including "placing another player in a position of danger." Assault does not require physical contact. An invisible player wielding a mace approaching another player constitutes placing that player in a position of danger under Section 1(b). The Defendant's own Answer at Point 5 confirms that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff while invisible and wielding a mace. The Defendant cannot simultaneously affirm this conduct and deny that it constitutes a threat.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — DEFENCE I(b) — COUNT II — PROVOCATION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's claim in Defence I(b) that Count II was provoked because "the defendant attacked him earlier."

The Defendant's own Answer at Point 8 confirms that the second attack occurred after the Plaintiff had fled and resumed lawful gameplay as a Fisher. There is a gap of approximately 1.5 in-game hours between the two incidents. A single bare-handed touch — made solely to identify an invisible armed stranger — followed by immediate flight into water cannot constitute provocation for an ambush from behind 1.5 in-game hours later. The Defendant chose to return and attack the Plaintiff from behind while the Plaintiff was fishing. This was not a response to provocation — it was a deliberate and premeditated second assault.

Furthermore, the Defendant's own Answer at Point 9 confirms the system message "rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself" — meaning the server itself determined that the Defendant initiated the fight, not the Plaintiff.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — DEFENCE II — PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's claim that punitive damages do not apply because the conduct was not outrageous.

The Defendant's own Answer confirms the following:
- The Defendant approached the Plaintiff while invisible and wielding a mace (Point 5)
- The Defendant's single blow dealt approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's total health (Point 10)
- The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff from behind while the Plaintiff was fishing (Point 8)
- The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no weapons, no armour, and no means of defence (Point 11)

Attacking a defenceless new player from behind with a weapon dealing 80% damage while they are fishing and making them fall into the water — is not a "simple hit." It is precisely the kind of wilful, deliberate, and reckless conduct that RCCA Part III Section 3(2)(b) defines as outrageous. The Defendant's claim that this was merely a "simple hit" is directly contradicted by the Defendant's own admissions.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — DEFENCE III — LOSS OF ENJOYMENT

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's claims in Defence III regarding Loss of Enjoyment on three grounds.

First, Defence III(a) claims that loss of enjoyment does not appear after a "simple hit without any losses." The Defendant's own Answer confirms that the single blow dealt 80% damage to the Plaintiff's health. This was not a simple hit — it was a near-fatal attack on a defenceless new player on their very first full day on the server. Furthermore, loss of enjoyment under RCCA Part III Section 5 does not require economic losses — it requires a lasting diminishment of the ability to engage in activities. The Plaintiff's ability to fish freely and safely in Aventura was directly and lastingly impacted.

Second, Defence III(b) claims the Plaintiff has played for over 48 hours since the incident. The Defendant has provided no evidence whatsoever to support this claim — no playtime records, no screenshots, no server data. This is an unsubstantiated assertion. The Plaintiff joined the server on June 1, 2026. The incident occurred on June 2, 2026 — the Plaintiff's very first full day, having accumulated only approximately 3 hours of total playtime. The Plaintiff's playtime records submitted as P-005 directly contradict this claim.

Third, Defence III(c) claims no losses were proven. The Plaintiff was a brand new player whose very first experience of lawful gameplay was violently interrupted by an ambush from behind dealing 80% damage. A reasonable person in these circumstances would experience a lasting diminishment of their enjoyment of the server — satisfying the RCCA Part III Section 5(2)(a) reasonable person standard.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[Kaiserin_]

All pending objections are overruled. Objections are to be made when procedure is breached, an individual perjures themselves under oath, or to evidence, testimony, and questions that are improper. Argumentation, which is a refutation of at-odds facts or legal theories, is to be had in your statements before this Court - filings, answers, and opening and closing statements. The Court cannot grant an objection simply because you believe a listed defence is wrong. Please see the objections guide under the Court Rules and Procedures for valid objection types - none of which are cited in your filings.

 

[MMiqa]

Your Honor, I apologize for the procedural error in my previous submissions. I will ensure my future filings adhere to the proper format.

 

[MMiqa]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS LIST

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff submits the following witness list:

1. MMiqa — The Plaintiff will testify regarding the two separate incidents on June 2, 2026: the initial invisible approach by the Defendant wielding a mace, the Plaintiff's single bare-handed touch to identify the attacker and immediate flight into water, and the subsequent unprovoked attack from behind approximately 1.5 in-game hours later while the Plaintiff was engaged in lawful Fisher gameplay. The Plaintiff will also testify regarding the lasting impact on their enjoyment of the server.

2. rykazard — The Defendant will testify regarding their decision to approach the Plaintiff while invisible and armed with a mace, and their decision to return and attack the Plaintiff from behind approximately 1.5 in-game hours later while the Plaintiff was fishing.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026.

 

[MaxvEtten]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY FINDING

Your Honor,

The Defendant suggests changing the name of the screenshot submitted by the Plaintiff earlier today, showing the playtime of the Plaintiff, from P-005 to P-007, since P-005 is already in use for another piece of evidence. This is to ensure no confusion is created.

Furthermore, the Defendant would like to point out that P-007 does show the Plaintiff accumulated more than 48 hours of playtime, since the incident occurred. The screenshot shows that the Plaintiff has played for 55 hours total, and the Plaintiff made the claim that at the time of the incident, he only had 3 hours of playtime. So in total the defendant has accumulated of 52 hours of playtime since the incident occurred

Dated: This 15th day of June, 2026.

 

[MMiqa]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following additional evidence pursuant to Rule 4.2:

P-008: Discord screenshots from both Democracycraft and Multiman/Jada campaign discord confirming that Aventura was widely recognised as unsafe and violent during the period of the incident. These screenshots include statements from other players confirming the dangerous conditions in Aventura, as well as a political candidate's campaign promise to "establish a Public Safety Task Force (PSTF) to patrol Aventura, Willow, and other high-risk areas to stop random attacks and ensure everyone can fish and farm in peace." The explicit reference to fishing and farming in peace directly confirms that the Plaintiff's inability to fish safely in Aventura was not an isolated experience — it was a recognised and widespread problem that even political candidates were pledging to address. The Defendant's conduct was part of this broader pattern of violence.

Spoiler: P008

P-009: Support ticket dated June 5, 2026 — confirming the Plaintiff has changed his job to become Mechanic instead of Fisher and abondaned his attempts to fish in Aventura (although his trade stayed until he established his farm, he quit after a short amount of time to become Farmer&Chef), following the incident and faced ongoing difficulties regarding to Fisher job and quit it entirely.

Spoiler: P009

P-010: Screenshot of the Plaintiff's 20+ floor farm — The Plaintiff has spent over 40 hours constructing and operating a large-scale farm with a surface area of 768 blocks, including cattle, bee, and wheat farming. This confirms that the Plaintiff abandoned Fisher activities in Aventura entirely and redirected their gameplay to farming — a direct and measurable consequence of the Defendant's conduct.

Spoiler: P010

P-011: Discord advertisement posted June 3, 2026 in #employment — The Plaintiff sought employment unrelated to Fisher duties the day after the incident, confirming that the Plaintiff's ability to engage in Fisher activities in Aventura was permanently altered following the attacks.

Spoiler: P011

The above evidence collectively demonstrates that the Plaintiff's Loss of Enjoyment is real, lasting, and directly attributable to the Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff did not merely play fewer hours — the Plaintiff fundamentally changed the nature of their gameplay, abandoning Fisher activities in Aventura entirely in favour of farming, as a direct and lasting consequence of the violence perpetrated against them on their very first day. Plaintiff is currently working as Mechanic with Chef and Farmer trades.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY FINDING

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff confirms the renaming of the playtime screenshot from P-005 to P-007 as suggested by the Defendant. This is noted for the record.

The Plaintiff also wishes to clarify the nature of the Loss of Enjoyment claim. Loss of Enjoyment under RCCA Part III Section 5 is not measured by hours played — it is measured by whether the Plaintiff can engage in activities in the same way as before the harm. The Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff has played 52 hours since the incident is therefore irrelevant to this claim.

The Plaintiff joined the server as a Fisher and was performing Fisher duties in Aventura at the time of the attack. As a direct result of the Defendant's conduct — part of a broader pattern of repeated unprovoked attacks in Aventura — the Plaintiff permanently abandoned Fisher activities entirely. The Plaintiff has since acquired a wilderness claim of 768 blocks at a cost of over $15,000, constructed a 20+ floor farm including cattle, bee, and wheat farming, and transitioned entirely to Mechanic, Farmer, and Chef trades. This transition represents over 40 hours of investment.

The Plaintiff did not choose to become a farmer. The Plaintiff was driven to it by the repeated attacks of which the Defendant's conduct was a part. This is a fundamental and permanent change in how the Plaintiff engages with the server — precisely the lasting diminishment that RCCA Part III Section 5(1)(a)(iii) was designed to address.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

 

[MaxvEtten]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the exhibits P-001 and P-002 be struck from the court record, on the basis that they both are a duplicate of P-003, and do not add any additional value to this case, they show no information P-003 does not show.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MaxvEtten]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the exhibit P-005 be struck from the court record, since it is a duplicate of P-006, and does not add any additional value to this case, P-005 shows no information P-006 does not show, and even shows less information, since we can not see the exact location of the incident clearly, and can not see the location where the Plaintiff was standing, unlike in P-006 where that is clear. P-005 is unnecessary for this case and the Defendant requests for it to be struck from the court record.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MaxvEtten]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant objects to P-008, which shows screenshots of Discord messages saying Aventura was unsafe and violent during the time of the incident. This does not mean that everyone in Aventura contributes to these claims. Furthermore, even IF the Defendant's conduct was part of a broader pattern of violence, these screenshots in P-008 still have no relevance to this case.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MaxvEtten]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that P-009 be struck from the court record, the screenshot shows a Discord ticket, which the Plaintiff does not authenticate at all. The messages indicate that the Plaintiff could simply not craft a certain part to a motorbike, not necessarily meaning he changed professions at that time. This screenshot does not prove anything and has no extra value to the case. Therefore the Defendant requests it to be struck from the court record.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026.

 

[MaxvEtten]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant objects to P-010 and P-011, which shows screenshots of other employment not related to fisher duties, being completed / sought. However this is not relevant to this case, since the Plaintiff was not forced to seek other employment, and was perfectly fine to continue lawful gameplay as a fisher. The Defendant's conduct did not interfere at all with the fisher job the Plaintiff was fulfilling, and he was capable of returning to his work after the incident occurred.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff notes that the Defendant has filed an Objection during the discovery period. Objections are not a recognised procedural step during discovery. If the Defendant wishes to challenge the admissibility of P-008, the appropriate mechanism is a Motion to Strike. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court disregard the Objection as procedurally improper.

 

[MaxvEtten]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY FINDING

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff defined that Loss of Enjoyment is measured by whether the Plaintiff can engage in activities in the same way as before the harm. The Defendant's conduct did not interfere with the Plaintiff's ability to continue Fisher activities. The Plaintiff claims that he did not choose to become a farmer, but shows no real evidence to support this claim. He simply chose himself to stop engaging in Fisher activities, and to become a farmer, and this had nothing to do with the Defendant's Conduct

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the exhibits P-001 and P-002 be struck from the court record, on the basis that they both are a duplicate of P-003, and do not add any additional value to this case, they show no information P-003 does not show.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE — P-001 AND P-002

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's Motion to Strike P-001 and P-002.

P-001, P-002, and P-003 are not duplicates. Each screenshot captures a distinct moment in a continuous sequence — the Defendant's deliberate approach toward the Plaintiff from a distance while invisible and wielding a mace. P-001 shows the Defendant at a distance. P-002 shows the Defendant closer. P-003 shows the Defendant in immediate proximity to the Plaintiff.

This sequence is material evidence of the deliberate and calculated nature of the Defendant's approach — directly relevant to establishing Assault under CCA Part IV Section 1(b) and the outrageous conduct required for punitive damages.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion to Strike be denied.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that P-009 be struck from the court record, the screenshot shows a Discord ticket, which the Plaintiff does not authenticate at all. The messages indicate that the Plaintiff could simply not craft a certain part to a motorbike, not necessarily meaning he changed professions at that time. This screenshot does not prove anything and has no extra value to the case. Therefore the Defendant requests it to be struck from the court record.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE — P-009

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's Motion to Strike P-009.

P-009 is a screenshot of a Discord support ticket opened by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the author of the ticket and can personally authenticate it. The ticket is dated June 5, 2026 — three days after the incident — and shows the Plaintiff operating as a Mechanic, confirming they had already abandoned Fisher activities and transitioned to a new profession. Read alongside P-010 and P-011, P-009 forms part of a consistent body of evidence demonstrating the Plaintiff's permanent change in gameplay following the Defendant's attack.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion to Strike be denied.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY FINDING

Your Honor,

The Defendant claims the Plaintiff "simply chose" to stop fishing and that the Defendant's conduct had nothing to do with this decision. This is directly contradicted by the evidence on record.

P-008 confirms that Aventura was widely recognised as unsafe and violent — political candidates were pledging to establish a Public Safety Task Force to ensure players could "fish and farm in peace." P-009 confirms the Plaintiff transitioned to Mechanic within three days of the incident. P-010 confirms the Plaintiff invested over 40 hours and $15,000 in a farming operation. P-011 confirms the Plaintiff was seeking non-Fisher employment the day after the incident.

The Defendant also affirmed at Point 4 of their own Answer that the Plaintiff had already been subjected to multiple unprovoked wrongful deaths by ZachOfPotatoes10 on the same day — establishing that the Plaintiff's decision to abandon Aventura was a direct response to a continuous pattern of violence of which the Defendant was a part.

A reasonable person subjected to repeated unprovoked attacks on their very first day — killed multiple times, then ambushed from behind while fishing — would not continue fishing in the same location. The Plaintiff did not choose to abandon Fisher activities. The Plaintiff was driven to abandon them.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the exhibit P-005 be struck from the court record, since it is a duplicate of P-006, and does not add any additional value to this case, P-005 shows no information P-006 does not show, and even shows less information, since we can not see the exact location of the incident clearly, and can not see the location where the Plaintiff was standing, unlike in P-006 where that is clear. P-005 is unnecessary for this case and the Defendant requests for it to be struck from the court record.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE — P-005

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's Motion to Strike P-005.

P-005 and P-006 are not duplicates — they capture two entirely distinct moments. P-005 shows the moment of impact — the Plaintiff being struck from behind and sent flying into the water. P-006 shows the Plaintiff surfacing from the water and turning around to see the Defendant fleeing the scene.

These two screenshots together establish the complete sequence of the attack: the strike, the Plaintiff's forced entry into the water, and the Defendant's immediate flight after attacking. P-006 alone cannot establish what P-005 shows — the moment of the attack itself. Striking P-005 would deprive the Court of the only visual evidence of the attack in progress.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion to Strike be denied.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

P-012: Enhanced ticket screenshot with staff response.

Spoiler: P012

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following additional evidence pursuant to Rule 4.2:

P-013: Enhanced screenshots of the Plaintiff's farm — showing the full scale of the farming operation constructed following the incident. The farm contains over 100 cows, at least 37 beehives each at full capacity (3/3 bees), totalling over 111 bees inside beehives alone with additional bees outside, across a 20+ floor structure. This operation required over 40 hours of construction and represents a fundamental and permanent redirection of the Plaintiff's gameplay.

Spoiler: P013

P-014: Screenshot showing the Plaintiff's wilderness claim — confirming the scale of land acquired and the investment made in farming infrastructure following the incident.

Spoiler: P014

The Plaintiff wishes to place the following on the record:

Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff enjoyed Fisher activities in Aventura. Following the repeated attacks of which the Defendant's conduct was a part, Fisher gameplay became impossible. The Plaintiff first transitioned to Mechanic — purchasing and selling materials such as iron — as a direct result of being unable to safely fish in Aventura. The Plaintiff subsequently acquired a wilderness plot and transitioned entirely to farming as their primary profession.

This was not a voluntary career change. The Plaintiff was driven out of Fisher activities by repeated unprovoked violence — the Defendant being one of the perpetrators. The Plaintiff loved fishing. The Defendant and others took that away.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff draws the Court's attention to P-008, which confirms that the danger in Aventura was so widely recognised that elected officials and political candidates — including the President-elect — publicly acknowledged that Aventura had become dangerously unsafe and pledged to establish dedicated police patrols to ensure players could fish and farm in peace. This is not the Plaintiff's personal perception — it is an acknowledged institutional failure that directly caused the Plaintiff's Loss of Enjoyment.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[Kaiserin_]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION — PLAINTIFF

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following additional evidence pursuant to Rule 4.2:

P-007: Playtime records via /about MMiqa — directly rebutting the Defendant's unsubstantiated claim that the Plaintiff has played for over 48 hours since the incident.

The Plaintiff also clarifies the timeline:
- First incident: rykazard approached while invisible and wielding a mace. Plaintiff touched Defendant once with bare hands to identify the attacker, then immediately fled into water. This event happened at 02:36 AM in-game time.(P-001 through P-004)
- Approximately 1.5 in-game hours later (around 04:02 AM): rykazard returned and attacked from behind — a completely separate incident. The Defendant's own Answer confirms this at Points 5 and 8.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026


View attachment 86021

Administratively renamed to P-007 on consent from both parties.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the exhibits P-001 and P-002 be struck from the court record, on the basis that they both are a duplicate of P-003, and do not add any additional value to this case, they show no information P-003 does not show.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

Not granted. While acknowledging that P-002 does not say what its caption purports it does, the evidence will not be struck on the grounds of duplication. The screenshots are not entirely identical, and multiple screenshots of the same event are not necessarily without value.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that the exhibit P-005 be struck from the court record, since it is a duplicate of P-006, and does not add any additional value to this case, P-005 shows no information P-006 does not show, and even shows less information, since we can not see the exact location of the incident clearly, and can not see the location where the Plaintiff was standing, unlike in P-006 where that is clear. P-005 is unnecessary for this case and the Defendant requests for it to be struck from the court record.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

Not granted for the same reason.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant objects to P-008, which shows screenshots of Discord messages saying Aventura was unsafe and violent during the time of the incident. This does not mean that everyone in Aventura contributes to these claims. Furthermore, even IF the Defendant's conduct was part of a broader pattern of violence, these screenshots in P-008 still have no relevance to this case.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

Not granted. While potentially anecdotal, the evidence is plausibly relevant to one of Plaintiff's arguments.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

The Defendant moves that P-009 be struck from the court record, the screenshot shows a Discord ticket, which the Plaintiff does not authenticate at all. The messages indicate that the Plaintiff could simply not craft a certain part to a motorbike, not necessarily meaning he changed professions at that time. This screenshot does not prove anything and has no extra value to the case. Therefore the Defendant requests it to be struck from the court record.

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026.

Not granted. Discord screenshots and transcripts are considered reliable evidence unless otherwise validly challenged. Plaintiff has justified the use of this ticket as supplemental to one of their lines of argumentation with plausible relevance.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY FINDING

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff confirms the renaming of the playtime screenshot from P-005 to P-007 as suggested by the Defendant. This is noted for the record.

The Plaintiff also wishes to clarify the nature of the Loss of Enjoyment claim. Loss of Enjoyment under RCCA Part III Section 5 is not measured by hours played — it is measured by whether the Plaintiff can engage in activities in the same way as before the harm. The Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff has played 52 hours since the incident is therefore irrelevant to this claim.

The Plaintiff joined the server as a Fisher and was performing Fisher duties in Aventura at the time of the attack. As a direct result of the Defendant's conduct — part of a broader pattern of repeated unprovoked attacks in Aventura — the Plaintiff permanently abandoned Fisher activities entirely. The Plaintiff has since acquired a wilderness claim of 768 blocks at a cost of over $15,000, constructed a 20+ floor farm including cattle, bee, and wheat farming, and transitioned entirely to Mechanic, Farmer, and Chef trades. This transition represents over 40 hours of investment.

The Plaintiff did not choose to become a farmer. The Plaintiff was driven to it by the repeated attacks of which the Defendant's conduct was a part. This is a fundamental and permanent change in how the Plaintiff engages with the server — precisely the lasting diminishment that RCCA Part III Section 5(1)(a)(iii) was designed to address.

DATED: This 15th day of June, 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY FINDING

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff defined that Loss of Enjoyment is measured by whether the Plaintiff can engage in activities in the same way as before the harm. The Defendant's conduct did not interfere with the Plaintiff's ability to continue Fisher activities. The Plaintiff claims that he did not choose to become a farmer, but shows no real evidence to support this claim. He simply chose himself to stop engaging in Fisher activities, and to become a farmer, and this had nothing to do with the Defendant's Conduct

Dated: This 16th day of June, 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY FINDING

Your Honor,

The Defendant claims the Plaintiff "simply chose" to stop fishing and that the Defendant's conduct had nothing to do with this decision. This is directly contradicted by the evidence on record.

P-008 confirms that Aventura was widely recognised as unsafe and violent — political candidates were pledging to establish a Public Safety Task Force to ensure players could "fish and farm in peace." P-009 confirms the Plaintiff transitioned to Mechanic within three days of the incident. P-010 confirms the Plaintiff invested over 40 hours and $15,000 in a farming operation. P-011 confirms the Plaintiff was seeking non-Fisher employment the day after the incident.

The Defendant also affirmed at Point 4 of their own Answer that the Plaintiff had already been subjected to multiple unprovoked wrongful deaths by ZachOfPotatoes10 on the same day — establishing that the Plaintiff's decision to abandon Aventura was a direct response to a continuous pattern of violence of which the Defendant was a part.

A reasonable person subjected to repeated unprovoked attacks on their very first day — killed multiple times, then ambushed from behind while fishing — would not continue fishing in the same location. The Plaintiff did not choose to abandon Fisher activities. The Plaintiff was driven to abandon them.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

These "discovery submissions" contain no evidence whatsoever. Counselors, you are both admonished once more that Discovery is not the time for argumentation. This courtroom is not conversational. There is no time or place in it for antagonistic back-and-forth comments. You may, of course, justify or defend against valid motions and objections while submitting or responding to them, but standalone arguments filed with no real purpose are out of turn and will not be considered. All argumentation in the above filings is hereby struck from the record.

Further, the Court clarifies that objections to evidence and witnesses are well within the bounds of Discovery submissions. Objections typically result in the striking of statements, evidence, or witnesses when sustained.

It is further clarified that parties may respond to objections within 24 hours of submission without explicit request, but that responses to motions must be granted by the Court before they can be submitted. As the above motions to strike are essentially indistinguishable from objections, I will excuse the mistake in this instance, but please be mindful of this rule as the case continues.

While I acknowledge that both counselors are new to the profession, and that this is a District Court case, I must advise for my own sanity that you carefully consult the Court Rules and Procedures, including the Motions and Objections guides before submitting filings before this court.

 

[MMiqa]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND EVIDENCE CAPTION — P-002

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff moves to amend the caption of P-002 to accurately reflect its contents.

Current caption: "Screenshot showing the Defendant rykazard has initiated a fight ('rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself') and the Plaintiff's severely depleted health bar."

Amended caption: "Screenshot showing the Defendant rykazard approaching the Plaintiff while invisible and wielding a mace after seeing the Plaintiff in P-001."

The Plaintiff apologizes for the caption error and requests that the Court accept this amendment for accuracy.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND EVIDENCE CAPTION — P-002

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff moves to amend the caption of P-002 to accurately reflect its contents.

Current caption: "Screenshot showing the Defendant rykazard has initiated a fight ('rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself') and the Plaintiff's severely depleted health bar."

Amended caption: "Screenshot showing the Defendant rykazard approaching the Plaintiff while invisible and wielding a mace after seeing the Plaintiff in P-001."

The Plaintiff apologizes for the caption error and requests that the Court accept this amendment for accuracy.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

Granted. Feel free to edit the original post.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Discovery has ended. The Plaintiff ( @MMiqa ) shall now have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

 

[MMiqa]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT — PLAINTIFF


MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

---

Your Honor,


This case is straightforward. The Defendant's own Answer establishes every material fact necessary for judgment in the Plaintiff's favour. What remains in dispute is not what happened — but how the Defendant characterises it. The Court will see that those characterisations are contradicted by the evidence, by the law, and by the Defendant's own admissions.

---

I. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS


The Defendant affirms the following at Points 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of his Answer:


The Defendant approached the Plaintiff while invisible and armed with a mace. The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff from behind while the Plaintiff was fishing. The Defendant's single blow dealt approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's total health. The in-game system declared "rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." The Plaintiff was a brand new player with no combat weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves.


None of this is contested. The Defendant wrote it himself.

---

II. COUNT I — INVISIBLE APPROACH


The Defendant argues that approaching the Plaintiff while invisible and armed with a mace caused no harm because he did not strike first. This misreads the law.


CCA Part IV §1(b) defines Assault as placing another player in a position of danger — including but not limited to pointing a weapon at them. An invisible player, armed with a deadly mace, deliberately walking toward a defenceless new player is placing that player in a position of danger. The Plaintiff could not see the attacker's name, could not identify the threat, and could not know whether an attack was imminent. That is precisely the danger §1(b) was designed to address.


The Defendant cannot simultaneously affirm that he approached the Plaintiff while invisible and armed — and deny that this constitutes placing the Plaintiff in danger.

---

III. COUNT II — "A SIMPLE HIT"


The Defendant describes the second attack as a "simple hit." The Criminal Code Act does not agree.


CCA Part IV §1(a) defines Assault as causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts. CCA Part IV §2(a) defines Attempted Murder as causing a loss of more than 3 hearts. The Defendant's single blow dealt approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's health — equivalent to 8 hearts on the server's standard scale. By the statute's own language, a blow of this magnitude does not merely satisfy Assault — it exceeds it, crossing the threshold into Attempted Murder. The Court need not reach that question today, as the Plaintiff brings the lesser charge of Assault. But what is beyond dispute is that a blow delivering 8 hearts of damage in a single strike cannot be dismissed as a "simple hit" under any reading of the Criminal Code Act. The Defendant's own characterisation of his conduct is directly contradicted by the statute.

---

IV. THE PROVOCATION DEFENCE FAILS


The Defendant claims Count II was provoked because the Plaintiff struck him during the first incident. This argument collapses on its own facts.


The Defendant affirms at Point 7 of his Answer that the Plaintiff struck him once with bare hands. The evidence confirms that the Plaintiff's stone tools carried full and completely unused durability at the time — proving the Plaintiff had no combat intent whatsoever. A player preparing for combat uses their tools. The Plaintiff's tools were entirely untouched. A single bare-handed touch made solely to identify an invisible armed stranger approaching in the dark, followed by immediate flight into water, does not constitute provocation by any reasonable standard.


More fundamentally: the Defendant affirms at Point 8 that the second attack occurred after the Plaintiff had already fled and resumed lawful Fisher gameplay. Defendant's attack from behind happened approximately 1.5 in-game hours later. The Defendant made a deliberate choice to return, locate the Plaintiff, and attack from behind while the Plaintiff was peacefully fishing. The server confirmed this at Point 9 of the Defendant's own Answer: "rykazard has started the fight." A provocation defence requires that the response bear a reasonable connection to the provocation. Returning 1.5 hours later to ambush a fishing player from behind is not a response to anything — it is a second, independent, and premeditated attack.

---

V. PUNITIVE DAMAGES


The Defendant argues his conduct was not outrageous. Consider what he himself affirms:


He approached a brand new player — one day on the server, three hours of total playtime — while invisible and armed with a mace. He then returned 1.5 hours later, located that same defenceless player, and attacked from behind with a weapon delivering 8 hearts of damage in a single blow. The Plaintiff had no weapons, had not even used his stone tools — their durability remaining entirely untouched — a brand new player with no armour and no means of defence. The Defendant's Answer contains no justification for either act.


This is not a momentary lapse of judgment. It is a two-stage pattern of conduct — invisible intimidation followed by a calculated ambush — targeting the most defenceless possible player on their very first day. RCCA Part III §3 defines outrageous conduct as a wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. That standard is plainly met.

---

VI. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT


The Defendant claims the Plaintiff "simply chose" to stop fishing and was perfectly capable of continuing Fisher activities after the incident. This claim is refuted by every piece of evidence on record.


The Plaintiff's loss of enjoyment is not a matter of feelings or perception. It is demonstrated by a concrete, irreversible, and financially crushing chain of events — each documented and timestamped.


June 3, 2026 — one day after the incident (P-011): The Plaintiff posted a public employment advertisement seeking work entirely unrelated to Fisher duties. Critically, the same post draws a direct response from another player stating that "wrongful deaths are just getting shot up in Aventura" — independently confirming that the violence which drove the Plaintiff away from Aventura was a widely recognised and ongoing reality, not a personal overreaction.


June 3, 2026 — same day (P-011): The Plaintiff publicly stated in the server's employment channel: "The first day I joined I was killed every hour and attacked way more." This is a direct, contemporaneous statement — made the day after the incident — confirming that the Plaintiff's departure from Fisher activities was a direct response to repeated violence, including the Defendant's attack.


June 5, 2026 — three days after the incident (P-009): The Plaintiff opened a support ticket as a Mechanic, having already abandoned Fisher activities entirely and transitioned to a new profession. This ticket is dated, authenticated by the Plaintiff, and confirms the career transition was already complete within 72 hours of the attack.


The farm (P-010, P-013, P-014): The Plaintiff did not merely change jobs. The Plaintiff made an irreversible, high-cost commitment to an entirely new gameplay existence. The Plaintiff acquired 758 wilderness claim blocks at $20 per block — a total land investment of over $15,000 — solely to establish a safe farming operation away from Aventura. The Plaintiff then spent over 40 to 50 hours constructing a 20+ floor farm housing over 100 cows, at least 37 beehives each at full capacity of 3 bees, and wheat farming across 768 blocks. This is not a casual hobby. This is a permanent, capital-intensive, time-consuming commitment that only makes sense if the Plaintiff had no intention of ever returning to Fisher activities in Aventura.


A player who merely took a short break from fishing does not spend $15,000 on land and 40 to 50 hours building a multi-floor agricultural operation. The exit cost alone — $15,000 in claim blocks before a single animal was purchased or a single hour of construction began — demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that this was a permanent and irreversible transition, not a temporary inconvenience.


The broader context (P-008): This transition did not occur in a vacuum. P-008 confirms that the danger in Aventura was so severe and so widely recognised that it had become a central political issue — acknowledged independently by multiple political actors. Multiman155 — now the President of the Commonwealth of Redmont — personally confirmed on June 5, 2026 that police patrols were being planned for Aventura docks, responding directly to a player who stated they had been shot to death there repeatedly. Separately, the People's Coalition of Redmont, an active political party at the time, publicly campaigned on a promise to "establish a Public Safety Task Force to patrol Aventura, Willow, and other high-risk areas to stop random attacks and ensure everyone can fish and farm in peace."


Two independent political actors. One shared conclusion: Aventura had become so dangerous that dedicated law enforcement was necessary just to allow players to fish safely. One of them has since become the President of the Commonwealth of Redmont — demonstrating that this promise resonated with the people of Redmont, and that the danger in Aventura was not a fringe concern but a defining public issue.


The violence in Aventura was not the Plaintiff's imagination. It was an institutional failure so serious that the incoming President of Redmont built part of his election campaign around fixing it. The Defendant's attack on the Plaintiff was not an isolated incident — it was part of the very pattern of violence that compelled the server's highest elected official to promise dedicated law enforcement patrols.


RCCA Part III §5 requires a lasting diminishment of the ability to engage in activities in the way the injured party did before the harm. The Plaintiff joined this server as a Fisher. The Plaintiff fished in Aventura on their very first day. The Defendant's attack — combined with the broader pattern of violence of which it was a part — permanently ended that. The Plaintiff has not fished in Aventura since. The Plaintiff has invested over $15,000 and 40 to 50 hours building a life that does not require setting foot in Aventura. That is not a choice. That is what loss of enjoyment looks like.


The Plaintiff seeks $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment — an amount that reflects the gravity, permanence, and financial reality of what the Defendant's conduct took from the Plaintiff on their very first day in this Commonwealth.

---

VII. CONCLUSION


The Defendant attacked a defenceless new player twice in one day — first through invisible intimidation, then through an ambush from behind delivering what the Criminal Code Act classifies as beyond the threshold of simple Assault. He now calls it a "simple hit."


The Plaintiff asks the Court to look at the Defendant's own admissions, the statute, and the evidence — and conclude otherwise.


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court award the full $40,000 in damages: $5,000 in nominal damages, $15,000 in punitive damages, and $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment.

---

DATED: This 22nd day of June, 2026


MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney

 

[Kaiserin_]

Thank you. The Defendant shall now have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

 

[MaxvEtten]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

First of all the Defense would like to apologise, since this Motion was not filed at the proper time, I personally did not take the time I had before to file this motion, that is why it is a little late, the Defense sincerely apologises. The Defendant does ask the court to still allow this motion to be filed on the grounds that it heavily impacts the case.

The Defense hereby respectfully moves for a full dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint, under rule 5.5 “Lack Of Claim”, and under rule 5.12 “Lack Of Standing” (If the court would allow this, since the motion was not filed at the proper time).


CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of Assault two times, the Plaintiff suffered no losses of any kind, no property damages, no economic loss, no loss of earnings, and no permanent diminishment at all. Without injury, there is no standing (Rule 2.1). A temporary incident is NOT a cognizable civil injury under the RCCA.

Where no cause of action exists, and no civil injury has taken place, no compensation is available by law. The Plaintiff Lacks standing under Rule 5.12

Furthermore under the RCCA, Nominal damages may be awarded when: “When the Plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to other damages.” The Plaintiff is also requesting other damages, thus making nominal damages unavailable under the RCCA. On this basis alone, Claim III, IV and V should be dismissed on this basis alone

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
As seen in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 Punitive Damages are not granted on a simple incident like Assault alone. The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant’s conduct was an organized attack, deliberately targeting a new player from behind, but shows no evidence of these claims. Furthermore the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's conduct was outrageous for the following reasons:

(a) The Defendant deliberately exploited the invisibility mechanic to approach and intimidate the Plaintiff — using an unfair tactical advantage to place a defenceless new player in fear.
(b) The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff from behind — a calculated and cowardly act that denied the Plaintiff any opportunity to react or defend themselves.
(c) The Defendant deliberately targeted a brand new player who had been on the server for only 1 day with only 3 hours of playtime, with no weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves.
(d) The Defendant's attacks occurred on the Plaintiff's very first day in Redmont, and in the context of the Plaintiff having already been victimised by multiple murders by another player on the same day — demonstrating a complete and callous disregard for the Plaintiff's safety and wellbeing.
(e) The two-stage nature of the attack — first invisible intimidation, then a later ambush from behind — demonstrates premeditation and deliberate predatory conduct, not a momentary lapse of judgment.

A. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant deliberately exploited the invisibility mechanic to approach and intimidate the Plaintiff, however this is not true. The Defendant simply walked past the Plaintiff while wielding his mace for his own safety, not with the intent to intimidate the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not hit or aim at the Plaintiff, showing no signs of intent to intimidate the Plaintiff.
B. While the attack did happen from behind, this was not a calculated attack and the Defendant showed no intent to actually Murder the Plaintiff, since he simply just hit him once and did not chase or try to murder him at all after the initial hit.
C. There is no evidence supporting this claim whatsoever, the Plaintiff presents no evidence that it was a deliberate attack on a new player.
D. The Defendant could not have had any knowledge of that the Plaintiff was attacked multiple times earlier that day, furthermore the Defendant is not connected to this earlier incidents in any way, making this irrelevant.
E. The Plaintiff implies that this was a planned attack, calling it the two-stage nature of the attack however did this not occur at all and presents no evidence proving this. The Defendant did not intimidate the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff saw a player wielding a mace for his own safety, not threatening the Plaintiff in the slightest.



CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES - LOSS OF ENJOYMENT
RCCA Part III, Section 5(1)(a)(iii) Defines Loss of Enjoyment as: 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. The Plaintiff did not lose their ability to engage in their fishing activities at all, after the attack the Plaintiff was fully capable of returning to Aventura, and continuing fishing. The Defendant’s conduct did not impeach this ability in the slightest.

DATED: This 24th day of June, 2026

 

[MMiqa]

May I respond, your Honour?

 

[MMiqa]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT — WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM III


Your Honour,


The Plaintiff respectfully moves to amend the Complaint to withdraw Claim III — Nominal Damages.


Consistent with the reasoning in 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52, nominal damages are unavailable where the Plaintiff is simultaneously seeking punitive damages. The Plaintiff accepts this and voluntarily withdraws Claim III to allow the remaining claims to proceed cleanly.


The amended Prayer for Relief is as follows:

• $15,000 in punitive damages
• $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment
• Any other relief the Court finds just and proper

TOTAL: $35,000


The remainder of the Complaint stands unamended.


DATED: This 25th day of June, 2026


MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[MMiqa]

@Kaiserin_

Thank you. The Defendant shall now have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

Your Honour, I would like to respectfully state that The Defendant have failed to submit an opening statement in time. Their motion to dismiss could not be an excuse to that, since it should be submitted before opening statements started.

 

[MMiqa]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and submits the following should the Court grant such permission.

Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 6 states: "A Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at any time before the beginning of opening statements." The Plaintiff filed their opening statement at Post #36. The Defendant filed this Motion at Post #38 — after the opening statement. This Motion is procedurally improper and must be denied.

The Defendant's own Motion acknowledges that it "was not filed at the proper time." Discovery in this case lasted 5 days. Furthermore, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 — the case the Defendant relies upon — was decided on June 15, 2026, 11 days ago, well before the close of discovery in this matter. The Defendant had ample time to file this Motion during discovery and chose not to do so.


MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[Kaiserin_]

Apologies for the delay here.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

First of all the Defense would like to apologise, since this Motion was not filed at the proper time, I personally did not take the time I had before to file this motion, that is why it is a little late, the Defense sincerely apologises. The Defendant does ask the court to still allow this motion to be filed on the grounds that it heavily impacts the case.

The Defense hereby respectfully moves for a full dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint, under rule 5.5 “Lack Of Claim”, and under rule 5.12 “Lack Of Standing” (If the court would allow this, since the motion was not filed at the proper time).


CLAIM III: NOMINAL DAMAGES
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of Assault two times, the Plaintiff suffered no losses of any kind, no property damages, no economic loss, no loss of earnings, and no permanent diminishment at all. Without injury, there is no standing (Rule 2.1). A temporary incident is NOT a cognizable civil injury under the RCCA.

Where no cause of action exists, and no civil injury has taken place, no compensation is available by law. The Plaintiff Lacks standing under Rule 5.12

Furthermore under the RCCA, Nominal damages may be awarded when: “When the Plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to other damages.” The Plaintiff is also requesting other damages, thus making nominal damages unavailable under the RCCA. On this basis alone, Claim III, IV and V should be dismissed on this basis alone

CLAIM IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
As seen in MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 Punitive Damages are not granted on a simple incident like Assault alone. The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant’s conduct was an organized attack, deliberately targeting a new player from behind, but shows no evidence of these claims. Furthermore the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's conduct was outrageous for the following reasons:

(a) The Defendant deliberately exploited the invisibility mechanic to approach and intimidate the Plaintiff — using an unfair tactical advantage to place a defenceless new player in fear.
(b) The Defendant attacked the Plaintiff from behind — a calculated and cowardly act that denied the Plaintiff any opportunity to react or defend themselves.
(c) The Defendant deliberately targeted a brand new player who had been on the server for only 1 day with only 3 hours of playtime, with no weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves.
(d) The Defendant's attacks occurred on the Plaintiff's very first day in Redmont, and in the context of the Plaintiff having already been victimised by multiple murders by another player on the same day — demonstrating a complete and callous disregard for the Plaintiff's safety and wellbeing.
(e) The two-stage nature of the attack — first invisible intimidation, then a later ambush from behind — demonstrates premeditation and deliberate predatory conduct, not a momentary lapse of judgment.

A. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant deliberately exploited the invisibility mechanic to approach and intimidate the Plaintiff, however this is not true. The Defendant simply walked past the Plaintiff while wielding his mace for his own safety, not with the intent to intimidate the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not hit or aim at the Plaintiff, showing no signs of intent to intimidate the Plaintiff.
B. While the attack did happen from behind, this was not a calculated attack and the Defendant showed no intent to actually Murder the Plaintiff, since he simply just hit him once and did not chase or try to murder him at all after the initial hit.
C. There is no evidence supporting this claim whatsoever, the Plaintiff presents no evidence that it was a deliberate attack on a new player.
D. The Defendant could not have had any knowledge of that the Plaintiff was attacked multiple times earlier that day, furthermore the Defendant is not connected to this earlier incidents in any way, making this irrelevant.
E. The Plaintiff implies that this was a planned attack, calling it the two-stage nature of the attack however did this not occur at all and presents no evidence proving this. The Defendant did not intimidate the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff saw a player wielding a mace for his own safety, not threatening the Plaintiff in the slightest.



CLAIM V: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES - LOSS OF ENJOYMENT
RCCA Part III, Section 5(1)(a)(iii) Defines Loss of Enjoyment as: 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. The Plaintiff did not lose their ability to engage in their fishing activities at all, after the attack the Plaintiff was fully capable of returning to Aventura, and continuing fishing. The Defendant’s conduct did not impeach this ability in the slightest.

DATED: This 24th day of June, 2026

Not granted. You yourself acknowledge that this motion is out of order.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT — WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM III


Your Honour,


The Plaintiff respectfully moves to amend the Complaint to withdraw Claim III — Nominal Damages.


Consistent with the reasoning in 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52, nominal damages are unavailable where the Plaintiff is simultaneously seeking punitive damages. The Plaintiff accepts this and voluntarily withdraws Claim III to allow the remaining claims to proceed cleanly.


The amended Prayer for Relief is as follows:

• $15,000 in punitive damages
• $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment
• Any other relief the Court finds just and proper

TOTAL: $35,000


The remainder of the Complaint stands unamended.


DATED: This 25th day of June, 2026


MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

Also not granted. Complaints may not be amended post-discovery (Rule 3.3).

@Kaiserin_

Your Honour, I would like to respectfully state that The Defendant have failed to submit an opening statement in time. Their motion to dismiss could not be an excuse to that, since it should be submitted before opening statements started.

Defendant foregoes the opportunity to deliver opening statements by failure to submit in a timely manner. No contempt will be issued. We will now move on to witness testimony.

Plaintiff shall have 24 hours to deliver questions to their witnesses, both of which are already summoned to the Court. Take note that you have called yourself as a witness. Testimony is still to be given in a question-and-answer format, and the same rules for typical witness testimony will apply.

 

[MMiqa]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS QUESTIONS — MMiqa


Your Honour,


The Plaintiff submits the following questions to witness MMiqa:


Q1 - On June 2, 2026, what were you doing in Aventura at approximately 02:36 AM in-game time?

A1 - I was fishing on Aventura Docks, like I have been doing for the first days of my time in Redmont. I don't have a plot, no items and I still had my starter items on me, including stone tools. I was working on earning some money then open a shop. I also wanted to have a collection of some custom fishes that was gold and long. I was trying to collect world record fishes, length-wise, and planned on selling them.

Q2 - When you first noticed an invisible player approaching you wielding a mace, what did you feel and what did you do?

A2 - I saw an invisible player, I saw his side-profile, the figure was outlined by red lines, then the figure turned towards me, because of the direction of the mace I knew where the figure was facing at all times, then it approached me really fast after locating me, I panicked, since I was killed multiple times that day, and I was feeling unsafe, and many players were, and I had punched the figure once to see who that person was from the chat log, afterwards I jumped to the water, I learned the figure's name, "rykazard". After the figure was gone I continued fishing but I had to stop at some points to check if players who attacked me before were near me, one of them was rykazard.

Q3 - Why did you strike the approaching player once with your bare hands rather than using your stone tools?

A3 - My goal was never to harm a player, I have punched the invisible player just to see their name, my stone tools could be used as a weapon, if I intended to attack the player and harm them, thats what I would do.

Q4 - What was the durability status of your stone tools at the time of the first incident?

A4 - At that point the only tool I had used was my fishing rod. My stone tools remained entirely untouched — full durability. I was a brand new player carrying my starter items.

After the first incident, what did you do and where did you go?

A5 - I continued fishing after I could not locate rykazard, I was not checking for anyone near me when he attacked me from behind after the first incident

Q6 - Approximately how much time passed in-game before the second incident occurred?

A6 - Around 1.5 in-game hours.

Q7 - During the second incident, were you engaged in any threatening or provocative behaviour toward the Defendant?

A7 - No. At that point in my gameplay, most of my time on the server was spent in Aventura Docks, until I had enough with attacks from different players, rykazard's actions were a big part of it. Since it was more intimaditng and long timing, not like what happened with ZachOfPotatoes10.

Q8 - ZachOfPotatoes10, you filed a lawsuit against him too, right?

A8 - Yes I have.

Q9 - In the lawsuit MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67, why haven't you claim Loss of Enjoyment like in this case?

A9 - ZachOfPotatoes10 came to me and attacked me for a duration of few minutes, rykazard was a constant threat and felt more calculated, it was like I had to always watch my back, second incident unfortunately proved my worries.

Q10 - In the ZachOfPotatoes10 case, the case was dismissed without prejudice, why do you think that this case would be different?

A10- ZachOfPotatoes10 case mentioned in your Q9 was about wrongful death, this is about assault, it was concluded in the verdict that "The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot pursue this action because the complaint rests entirely on wrongful death, a tort that does not exist under Redmont law. The Court agrees."
This case is not about wrongful death, it is assault and it is a tort that exists under Redmont law. Besides, since Zach did not effect my gameplay on Aventura Docks like rykazard, I did not follow through with a claim that had no basis.

Q11 - What happened when the Defendant attacked you from behind during the second incident?

A11 - I fell into the water, and I, understandibly, freaked out. I flew to the water like it had some kind of knockback, the thing rykazard hit me with, which I have no clue what that was. But the pictures I have taken shows that I am significantly far away from the docks, a normal punch or unenchanted sword could not push me this far. I have realized I lost at least 80 percent of my health.

Q12 - Following the incidents on June 2, 2026, did you return to fishing in Aventura?

A12 - No, there were many more attackers that day, besides ZachOfPotatoes10 and rykazard, but most of them were new here, I learned that from "/about" command, and I had not very much evidence in these incidents. After a while I learned how to defend myself legally with documentation and through many assaults on me I learned how to file a lawsuit, got my attorney license to sue people who did commit crimes against me.

Q13 - What changes did you make to your profession and gameplay following the incidents?
A13 - Well, I have became a mechanic, I had an issue about perms, I could not craft the bike chasis, so I made a ticket. I published an advertisement in DemocracyCraft discord to help people who have been wrongfully killed and attacked, and I supported Multiman155 mainly because of his promise to increase patrols in dangerous areas, such as Aventura Docks, and hiring more police officers.

Q14 - How much money and time did you invest in establishing your farming operation?
A14 - I am not able to give exact number, since it is almost impossible for me to do. But I spent around 15000$ just to have claims on my wilderness plot. I have made a wheat, bee and cow farm in my farm. It is around at least 20 stories high. I have spent a lot of time in this project since I learned I had to be alone and away from harm to earn money after the incidences in Aventura.

Q15 - On June 3, 2026, you posted a public advertisement in the server's employment channel. What did you say in that advertisement and why?

A15 - My post had exactly this in advertisement "You are new and having wrongful deaths? I AM THE ATTORNEY FOR YOU. As a new player, I am facing a lot of wrongful deaths on me and I started suing people. I got far ahead with the law concerning these issues, and for a small price I can help you to seek payment for the damages as well! DM me!"
2 minutes after I have posted it I had a reply from someone named "Juniper Akane" saying "wrongful deaths are js getting shot up in aventura tbh", and I wanted to represent people who have faced what I have faced.

Q16 - Prior to the incidents on June 2, 2026, what was your intention regarding your career in Redmont?

A16 - I wanted to learn and fish, I saw it as the best way to earn money as a beginner. I planned to fish for a month, buy a plot and create a shop. I could only last couple days before throwing to towel on my fishing job. I was forced to quit, otherwise I would not continue this server because of non-stop attacks on me.


DATED: This 27th day of June, 2026


MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[MMiqa]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS QUESTIONS — rykazard

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits the following questions to witness rykazard:

1. On June 2, 2026, at approximately 02:36 AM in-game time, you were present in Aventura while rendered invisible and wielding a mace. What was your purpose in being invisible in a populated city area where other players were present?

2. The invisibility mechanic you used renders your character invisible to other players. You were aware that any player near you would not be able to see you, identify you, or know your intentions. Given this, why did you choose to approach another player while in this state and while armed with a mace?

3. P-001 through P-003 show a continuous sequence of screenshots demonstrating that you closed distance toward the Plaintiff across multiple frames — from far away to immediate proximity. This is not the behaviour of a player walking past. This is the behaviour of a player deliberately approaching a specific target. Can you explain why you continued closing distance toward the Plaintiff rather than walking in any other direction?

4. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 5 that you approached the Plaintiff while invisible and armed with a mace. You denied that this was threatening. How do you reconcile approaching an unarmed, defenceless new player while invisible and armed — and claim that this was not threatening?

5. P-001 through P-004 confirm that the Plaintiff's stone tools carried full and completely unused durability throughout both incidents. The Plaintiff struck you once with bare hands — not with any tool or weapon — and immediately fled into the water. According to the evidence on record, the Plaintiff never used a single tool or weapon against you at any point. On what basis do you claim that a single bare-handed touch from a player who immediately fled, whose tools remained entirely untouched, constituted provocation sufficient to justify returning 1.5 in-game hours later and attacking from behind?

6. After the first incident, approximately 1.5 in-game hours passed before the second attack. During this time, the Plaintiff had fled, entered the water, and resumed peaceful fishing. You made a deliberate choice to return to Aventura, locate the Plaintiff, and attack from behind. Please describe, step by step, what you did during those 1.5 in-game hours and what led you to return and attack the Plaintiff.

7. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 9 that the server system declared "rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." This system message confirms that the server itself determined you initiated the second attack — not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's stone tools, as shown in P-001 through P-004, remained at full and completely unused durability — meaning the Plaintiff did not use a single weapon against you at any point. Do you dispute the server's determination that you initiated the second attack?

8. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 10 that your single blow dealt approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's total health. CCA Part IV §1(a) defines Assault as causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts. CCA Part IV §2(a) defines Attempted Murder as causing a loss of more than 3 hearts. Your single blow caused approximately 8 hearts of damage. You have described this as a "simple hit." Under which provision of the Criminal Code Act does causing 8 hearts of damage in a single blow to a player who has never used a single weapon against you qualify as a "simple hit"?

9. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 11 that the Plaintiff was a brand new player with no combat weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves. The evidence confirms the Plaintiff's stone tools were entirely untouched — the Plaintiff never used a single weapon against you across both incidents. You attacked this player from behind with a weapon causing 8 hearts of damage while they were peacefully fishing. What justification do you have for this conduct against a player who, as the evidence confirms, never once used a weapon against you?

10. P-005 and P-006 confirm the system message "rykazard has started the fight" and the Plaintiff's critically depleted health bar following your attack. P-001 through P-003 confirm your deliberate approach while invisible and armed. P-004 confirms the Plaintiff's presence and lawful Fisher gameplay. Across all of this evidence, the Plaintiff never used a single weapon against you — their stone tools remained entirely untouched throughout. The Defendant's Answer contains no justification for either the invisible approach or the attack from behind. Given that you have affirmed every material fact establishing both counts of Assault — what is your response to the Plaintiff's claim that your conduct was outrageous under RCCA Part III §3?

11. Following your attack, the Plaintiff permanently abandoned Fisher activities in Aventura — transitioning first to Mechanic within 72 hours as confirmed by P-009, then seeking non-Fisher employment the very next day as confirmed by P-011, then investing over $15,000 in claim blocks and 40 to 50 hours constructing a 20+ floor farming operation as confirmed by P-010, P-013, and P-014. P-008 confirms that the danger in Aventura was so severe that the now-President of Redmont personally pledged police patrols to ensure players could fish safely. Do you accept any responsibility for the Plaintiff's permanent departure from Fisher activities?

12. The Plaintiff carried stone tools throughout both incidents. Those tools remained at full and completely unused durability — confirmed by the evidence. The Plaintiff struck you once with bare hands to identify you, then immediately fled. You returned 1.5 in-game hours later and attacked with a weapon delivering 8 hearts of damage from behind. Given that the only contact the Plaintiff ever made with you was a single bare-handed touch using no weapon whatsoever — and given that you chose to respond to this 1.5 hours later with a weapon causing 8 hearts of damage from behind while the Plaintiff was fishing — do you maintain that your conduct was not deliberate, calculated, and predatory?

DATED: This 27th day of June, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[Kaiserin_]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS QUESTIONS — rykazard

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits the following questions to witness rykazard:

1. On June 2, 2026, at approximately 02:36 AM in-game time, you were present in Aventura while rendered invisible and wielding a mace. What was your purpose in being invisible in a populated city area where other players were present?

2. The invisibility mechanic you used renders your character invisible to other players. You were aware that any player near you would not be able to see you, identify you, or know your intentions. Given this, why did you choose to approach another player while in this state and while armed with a mace?

3. P-001 through P-003 show a continuous sequence of screenshots demonstrating that you closed distance toward the Plaintiff across multiple frames — from far away to immediate proximity. This is not the behaviour of a player walking past. This is the behaviour of a player deliberately approaching a specific target. Can you explain why you continued closing distance toward the Plaintiff rather than walking in any other direction?

4. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 5 that you approached the Plaintiff while invisible and armed with a mace. You denied that this was threatening. How do you reconcile approaching an unarmed, defenceless new player while invisible and armed — and claim that this was not threatening?

5. P-001 through P-004 confirm that the Plaintiff's stone tools carried full and completely unused durability throughout both incidents. The Plaintiff struck you once with bare hands — not with any tool or weapon — and immediately fled into the water. According to the evidence on record, the Plaintiff never used a single tool or weapon against you at any point. On what basis do you claim that a single bare-handed touch from a player who immediately fled, whose tools remained entirely untouched, constituted provocation sufficient to justify returning 1.5 in-game hours later and attacking from behind?

6. After the first incident, approximately 1.5 in-game hours passed before the second attack. During this time, the Plaintiff had fled, entered the water, and resumed peaceful fishing. You made a deliberate choice to return to Aventura, locate the Plaintiff, and attack from behind. Please describe, step by step, what you did during those 1.5 in-game hours and what led you to return and attack the Plaintiff.

7. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 9 that the server system declared "rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself." This system message confirms that the server itself determined you initiated the second attack — not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's stone tools, as shown in P-001 through P-004, remained at full and completely unused durability — meaning the Plaintiff did not use a single weapon against you at any point. Do you dispute the server's determination that you initiated the second attack?

8. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 10 that your single blow dealt approximately 80% of the Plaintiff's total health. CCA Part IV §1(a) defines Assault as causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts. CCA Part IV §2(a) defines Attempted Murder as causing a loss of more than 3 hearts. Your single blow caused approximately 8 hearts of damage. You have described this as a "simple hit." Under which provision of the Criminal Code Act does causing 8 hearts of damage in a single blow to a player who has never used a single weapon against you qualify as a "simple hit"?

9. You affirmed in your Answer at Point 11 that the Plaintiff was a brand new player with no combat weapons, no armour, and no means to adequately defend themselves. The evidence confirms the Plaintiff's stone tools were entirely untouched — the Plaintiff never used a single weapon against you across both incidents. You attacked this player from behind with a weapon causing 8 hearts of damage while they were peacefully fishing. What justification do you have for this conduct against a player who, as the evidence confirms, never once used a weapon against you?

10. P-005 and P-006 confirm the system message "rykazard has started the fight" and the Plaintiff's critically depleted health bar following your attack. P-001 through P-003 confirm your deliberate approach while invisible and armed. P-004 confirms the Plaintiff's presence and lawful Fisher gameplay. Across all of this evidence, the Plaintiff never used a single weapon against you — their stone tools remained entirely untouched throughout. The Defendant's Answer contains no justification for either the invisible approach or the attack from behind. Given that you have affirmed every material fact establishing both counts of Assault — what is your response to the Plaintiff's claim that your conduct was outrageous under RCCA Part III §3?

11. Following your attack, the Plaintiff permanently abandoned Fisher activities in Aventura — transitioning first to Mechanic within 72 hours as confirmed by P-009, then seeking non-Fisher employment the very next day as confirmed by P-011, then investing over $15,000 in claim blocks and 40 to 50 hours constructing a 20+ floor farming operation as confirmed by P-010, P-013, and P-014. P-008 confirms that the danger in Aventura was so severe that the now-President of Redmont personally pledged police patrols to ensure players could fish safely. Do you accept any responsibility for the Plaintiff's permanent departure from Fisher activities?

12. The Plaintiff carried stone tools throughout both incidents. Those tools remained at full and completely unused durability — confirmed by the evidence. The Plaintiff struck you once with bare hands to identify you, then immediately fled. You returned 1.5 in-game hours later and attacked with a weapon delivering 8 hearts of damage from behind. Given that the only contact the Plaintiff ever made with you was a single bare-handed touch using no weapon whatsoever — and given that you chose to respond to this 1.5 hours later with a weapon causing 8 hearts of damage from behind while the Plaintiff was fishing — do you maintain that your conduct was not deliberate, calculated, and predatory?

DATED: This 27th day of June, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

The deadline has technically passed for Defendant to answer these questions, but I'll presume that they were unaware that the timer starts when the questions are submitted. @rykazard you have 24 hours to answer these.

 

[MMiqa]

The deadline has technically passed for Defendant to answer these questions, but I'll presume that they were unaware that the timer starts when the questions are submitted. @rykazard you have 24 hours to answer these.

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully notes that witness rykazard has failed to respond to the submitted questions within the 24-hour period granted by the Court at Post #46. The Plaintiff respectfully moves for Default Judgment against the Defendant.

The Defendant has now failed to participate at three separate stages:

1. Failed to submit an opening statement within 72 hours — acknowledged by the Court at Post #43.

2. Failed to respond to witness questions within the original period following Post #45.

3. Failed to respond within the additional 24-hour period granted by the Court at Post #46.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Default Judgment and award the following relief:

• $15,000 in punitive damages
• $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment
• Any other relief the Court finds just and proper

TOTAL: $35,000

The Plaintiff does not pursue Claim III — Nominal Damages — in light of the simultaneous claim for punitive damages, consistent with the reasoning in 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52.

DATED: This 30th day of June, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[MMiqa]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT


Your Honour @Kaiserin_ ,


The Plaintiff respectfully moves for Default Judgment against the Defendant.


The Defendant has failed to participate in this proceeding at three separate stages:

1. Failed to submit an opening statement within 72 hours — acknowledged by the Court at Post #43.
2. Failed to respond to witness questions within the original period following Post #45.
3. Failed to respond within the additional 24-hour period granted by the Court at Post #46.

The Plaintiff's civil claim rests on Battery under common law, preserved by RCCA Part II §3(1)(a). The Defendant's intentional unlawful physical contact without consent — confirmed by the Defendant's own Answer at Points 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 — satisfies every element of Battery. The label "Assault" reflects the CCA criminal offence underlying the civil action.

Count I constitutes Assault under CCA Part IV §1(b). Count II constitutes Battery under common law — intentional unlawful physical contact confirmed by the Defendant's own admissions. Both are actionable civil claims under RCCA Part II §3(1)(a).


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Default Judgment and award the following relief:

• $15,000 in punitive damages
• $20,000 in consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment
• Any other relief the Court finds just and proper

TOTAL: $35,000


The Plaintiff does not pursue Claim III — Nominal Damages — in light of the simultaneous claim for punitive damages, consistent with the reasoning in 3mkTalal v. legoear [2026] DCR 52.


DATED: This 29th day of June, 2026


MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney of the Redmont Bar Association

 

[MMiqa]

@Kaiserin_
Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully wishes to draw the Court's attention to the pending Motion for Default Judgment filed at Post #48. The 24-hour deadline granted to witness rykazard at Post #46 has now passed. The Plaintiff respectfully awaits the Court's ruling at the Court's earliest convenience.

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[Dartanboy]

I am taking over this case for Kaiserin.

Court Order

In light of the Defendant's seemingly inadequate counsel and the Defendant's failure to appear to answer the questions, the Court hereby orders the Public Defender Program to appear on the Defendant's behalf.

Due to the current case load, the Public Defender Program will have an extended deadline to appear - 240 hours (10 days).

 

[MMiqa]

I am taking over this case for Kaiserin.

Court Order

In light of the Defendant's seemingly inadequate counsel and the Defendant's failure to appear to answer the questions, the Court hereby orders the Public Defender Program to appear on the Defendant's behalf.

Due to the current case load, the Public Defender Program will have an extended deadline to appear - 240 hours (10 days).

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully notes that the issue in this case is not the adequacy of the Defendant’s counsel. The Defendant, rykazard, has been inactive and unresponsive throughout these proceedings — failing to submit an opening statement, failing to respond to witness questions within the original deadline, and failing to respond within the additional 24-hour period granted by the Court at Post #46.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment at Post #48 is premised on the Defendant’s own failure to participate — not on any deficiency in legal representation.

The Plaintiff respectfully defers to the Court’s discretion, but notes that appointing a Public Defender does not address the underlying issue: the witness rykazard has not appeared and has not answered the submitted questions.

MMiqa


Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully notes that the issue in this case is not the adequacy of the Defendant’s counsel. The Defendant, rykazard, has been inactive and unresponsive throughout these proceedings — failing to submit an opening statement, failing to respond to witness questions within the original deadline, and failing to respond within the additional 24-hour period granted by the Court at Post #46.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment at Post #48 is premised on the Defendant’s own failure to participate — not on any deficiency in legal representation.

The Plaintiff respectfully defers to the Court’s discretion, but notes that appointing a Public Defender does not address the underlying issue: the witness rykazard has not appeared and has not answered the submitted questions.

MMiqa


Plaintiff, Self-Represented

Their counsel failed to file an Opening Statement. The Defendant themselves failed to answer the questions.