MMiqa v. rykazard

[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 has initiated a fight ("rykazard has started the fight, you can legally defend yourself") and the Plaintiff's severely depleted health bar.

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