Lawsuit: Dismissed monkey_itay v. DiehardGameFAM [2026] DCR 124

[monkey_itay]

================================================================================

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

================================================================================

monkey_itay
Plaintiff

v.

DiehardGameFAM
Defendant

Case No: DC-CV-2026-____

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDED WRIT OF SUMMONS / COMPLAINT FOR TORTIOUS CONDUCT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Plaintiff, a registered attorney within the State of Redmont representing
themselves pro se, brings this civil action against the Defendant for severe
tortious misconduct, seeking financial restitution for recognized common law civil
wrongs, and states as follows:

I. PARTIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Plaintiff is a citizen and registered attorney within the State of Redmont.
2. The Defendant is a citizen within the State of Redmont.
3. This Court holds proper jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to the
Judiciary Act, as it handles active private disputes, tort claims, and complaints
of malicious civil prosecution between citizens.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. On July 12, 2026, the Plaintiff was lawfully at a public location in Redmont
when the Defendant approached and attempted an unprovoked confrontation,
utilizing physical intimidation and weapon brandishing to disrupt the Plaintiff's
peace.
2. Following the encounter, the Defendant explicitly escalated the situation via
public chat channels, stating a clear intent to target and kill the Plaintiff
"over and over again."
3. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant utilized the public bounty system to put a
financial hit on the Plaintiff's character, actively paying and soliciting
third-party elements to execute the verbal threat.
4. Later that evening, the Plaintiff and their spouse attempted to travel to a
local Redmont restaurant for an arranged date night.
5. Immediately upon exiting the safe zone of spawn, the Plaintiff was actively
tracked down and ambushed by individuals acting on the Defendant's funded
bounty, forcing the Plaintiff into immediate survival flight via elytra.
6. As a direct consequence of the bounty tracking, the Plaintiff’s planned marital
engagement was entirely sabotaged, resulting in a total cancellation of the
date night.
7. Following these events, the Defendant explicitly confirmed their malicious
state of mind in public chat, stating verbatim: "I do not care what laws I
break this server is basically lawless." (See Exhibit D).
8. The Defendant further boasted about a persistent history of server disruption,
stating verbatim: "I am a murderer with 17 kills." (See Exhibit E).
9. In a further escalation of targeted harassment, the Defendant contacted the
Redmont Police Department and falsely reported the Plaintiff, mischaracterizing
the Plaintiff's lawful acts of self-defense as a criminal infraction.
10. As a direct result of the Defendant's false report and malicious fabrication,
the Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and thrown into jail, suffering extreme
public humiliation, lost gameplay time, and deprivation of liberty.
11. The Plaintiff has captured unedited, timestamped screenshot evidence of all
statements, actions, and the resulting wrongful incarceration described herein.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNT I: THE TORT OF CIVIL ASSAULT
1. The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1–11 of the Statement of Facts.
2. Under Redmont Common Law, civil assault is an intentional act that places a
reasonable person in immediate apprehension of harmful or offensive physical
contact.
3. The Defendant’s explicit chat threats to repeatedly kill the Plaintiff,
combined with funding an active bounty system that resulted in an immediate
physical ambush, created a reasonable, severe, and sustained apprehension for
the safety of the Plaintiff's character.

COUNT II: THE TORT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE & CIVIL HARASSMENT
1. The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1–11 of the Statement of Facts.
2. Private nuisance and civil harassment consist of intentional, continuous conduct
that substantially and unreasonably interferes with a citizen's right to use,
enjoy, and navigate the server free from targeted intimidation.
3. By funding a continuous tracking bounty and declaring an intent to disrupt the
player experience, the Defendant committed a civil nuisance that directly barred
the Plaintiff from standard gameplay.

COUNT III: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / RELATIONAL DAMAGE
1. The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1–11 of the Statement of Facts.
2. The Defendant's targeted bounty directly sabotaged a planned marital
engagement, causing an intentional loss of companionship, relationship
enjoyment, and acute emotional strain between the Plaintiff and their spouse.

COUNT IV: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION / ABUSE OF PROCESS
1. The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1–11 of the Statement of Facts.
2. The tort of Malicious Prosecution occurs when a party initiates or procures
a groundless criminal proceeding against an innocent person with malicious intent.
3. By calling the police on the Plaintiff following a scenario where the Plaintiff
acted strictly in self-defense, the Defendant intentionally misled law enforcement
to secure the Plaintiff's incarceration.
4. This bad-faith manipulation of the state legal apparatus caused direct injury
to the Plaintiff through a wrongful deprivation of liberty and damage to their
standing as a registered attorney.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
judgment against the Defendant and award the following equitable civil remedies:

1. Financial Damages in the total amount of $8000 to compensate for the severe
tort of Civil Assault, persistent civil harassment, loss of consortium, and the
profound injury of malicious prosecution resulting in jail time.
2. A formal Injunction / Restraining Order compelling the Defendant to pay to
remove the bounty immediately, and prohibiting the Defendant from approaching
within 50 blocks of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's spouse.
3. Any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

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 12th day of July, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ monkey_itay
Plaintiff, Pro Se

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibit A:

* Exhibit B:

* Exhibit C:

* Exhibit D:

* Exhibit E:

* Exhibit F:

================================================================================

 

[Matthew100x]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause- rmonkey_itay v. DiehardGameFAM

Please identify the Redmont case law allowing the following civil claims:

COUNT I: THE TORT OF CIVIL ASSAULT
COUNT II: THE TORT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE & CIVIL HARASSMENT
COUNT III: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / RELATIONAL DAMAGE
COUNT IV: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION / ABUSE OF PROCESS

It should be noted that the Redmont Civil Code Act allows for a claim of Nuisance, but that is in relation to the deprivation of the use of property, which is not alleged in this complaint. Therefore, please identify the Redmont common law basis for "Private Nuisance & Civil Harassment" as defined in the complaint.

 

[monkey_itay]

The Plaintiff, monkey_itay, respectfully submits this response to the Court's
Order to Show Cause, clarifying the common law basis for the active civil claims:

1. COUNT I: THE TORT OF CIVIL ASSAULT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* BASIS: The Plaintiff relies on established Redmont common law regarding personal
security, as outlined historically in matters like ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 57.
The Defendant's unprovoked brandishing of weapons paired with explicit, text-based
threats to kill the Plaintiff "over and over again" created a reasonable and
immediate apprehension of imminent harmful contact, satisfying all traditional
elements of civil assault.

2. COUNT II: AMENDMENT TO CIVIL HARASSMENT & STALKING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* BASIS: The Plaintiff accepts the Court's correction regarding the property-centric
nature of Nuisance under the Redmont Civil Code Act. The Plaintiff hereby requests
to drop the term "Private Nuisance" and amend Count II to focus exclusively on
the common law tort of Civil Harassment.
* ARGUMENT: The Defendant explicitly weaponized public mechanics by placing a financial
bounty on the Plaintiff. This did not relate to a property dispute; rather, it
constituted a targeted, ongoing act of stalking that actively mobilized third-party
hitmen to trap the Plaintiff at the spawn exit, causing an unreasonable and
severe disruption to basic gameplay and safety.

3. COUNT III: INTERFERENCE WITH GAMEPLAY & RELATIONAL ENJOYMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* BASIS: While Loss of Consortium is traditionally a real-world tort, the Plaintiff
pivots this claim to focus on intentional, tortious interference with a registered
spousal relationship within the server framework. By funding an active tracking
bounty, the Defendant maliciously caused a targeted spawn ambush that completely
prevented the Plaintiff from attending a scheduled date night, inflicting a
demonstrable loss of recreational enjoyment and companionship.

4. COUNT IV: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION / ABUSE OF PROCESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* BASIS: Redmont common law universally protects citizens from the bad-faith
manipulation of law enforcement. By contacting the Redmont Police Department and
falsely reporting a valid self-defense action as a crime, the Defendant procured
a groundless proceeding with explicit malice. This direct action resulted in a
wrongful deprivation of liberty (jail time) and subsequent medical status debuffs.

CONCLUSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests that the Court accept these common law foundations,
permit the amendment of Count II, and allow the case to proceed to pleadings.

 

[Matthew100x]

Posted early.

 

[monkey_itay]

?

 

[Matthew100x]

I am dismissing this case and charging the Plaintiff with filing a frivolous court case.

The Redmont Civil Code Act provides that the Code is a non-exhaustive listing of civil violations and does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking a remedy for harm not explicitly codified where common law principles or judicial precedent support such a claim. (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 3(1)(a), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act). It also preserves existing common law torts already established unless expressly abolished by the Code. (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 3(1)(b), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

Where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under the Civil Code, the plaintiff may pursue civil remedies under the Civil Code, civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code, or both, so long as there is no double recovery (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 (citing Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 4(3)(a)–(c), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act); see also Lawsuit: Dismissed - Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59 ("The Redmont Civil Code Act ("RCCA") does indeed allow for civil action regarding a criminal violation, but typically only supports that action where both the RCCA and the Criminal Code Act ("CCA") reference the underlying claim")).

Here, the Plaintiff utilizes non-existent common law to pursue a claim:
COUNT I: THE TORT OF CIVIL ASSAULT
This is not a tort that exists under the Redmont Civil Code. When asked to provide precedent, the Plaintiff provided a case that was dismissed at the request of the plaintiff. (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 57).

COUNT II: THE TORT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE & CIVIL HARASSMENT
This tort does not exist in the Redmont Civil Code, and the Plaintiff provides no citation to explain its basis in the common law.

COUNT III: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / RELATIONAL DAMAGE
This tort does not exist in the Redmont Civil Code, and the Plaintiff provides no citation to explain its basis in the common law.

COUNT IV: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION / ABUSE OF PROCESS
This tort does not exist in the Redmont Civil Code, and the Plaintiff provides no citation to explain its basis in the common law. Furthermore, the argument made here appears to be going against the Commonwealth for being arrested/deprived of rights rather than the named defendant.

The Plaintiff is hereby charged with one count of filing a Frivolous Court Case and is sentenced to a statutorily mandatory 100 penalty units. (See Criminal Code Act, Part III, § 4, Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act). This case has no serious value because it was written with no plausible claim for relief, was very likely to have been substantially written by AI (which is against server rules), and it harms the judicial economy.