Lawsuit: Pending Muggy21 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 86

[BrownBerry]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Muggy21
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 10/24/25 wttn2c approached Multi and I while Multi was investigating a previous murder wttn2c had done on me. During this, he then proceeded to point his gun and me then onto Multi trying to kill both of us. I got my gun and returned fired when shot at.

I. PARTIES
1. Muggy21 - Plaintiff
2. Department of Homeland Security - Defendant
3. Rory__ - Secretary of Homeland Security
4. Goldendude15 - Police Officer, Homeland Security

II. FACTS
1. On October 24th, 2025 at 16:46:35, wttn2c killed Muggy21 without any notification that shots were fired at Muggy21.
2. Multiman155 investigated this murder and found evidence that a gun was used; Wttn2c was subsequently charged with x1 Murder.
3. Shortly before October 24th, 2025 at 16:48:26, wttn2c attempted to murder myself and Multiman155 whilst on the roof of a government building.
4. Shortly on or thereafter on October 24th, 2025 at 16:48:26, Muggy21 killed wttn2c in self-defense after wttn2c brandished and fired a weapon at Plaintiff and at bystander Multiman155. This incident was witnessed by Multiman155
5. On October 24th, 2025 at 17:25, Plaintiff opened a DHS support ticket raising a self-defense exception to the recently charged “Murder of wttn2c” (Wanted Record #12525).
6. Multiman155, in support of Plaintiff, stated in the ticket that a “rabid shooter attacked me… and Mug” (within P-001)
7. Plaintiff and various DHS officials spoke on Ticket dhs-24858 (P-001)
8. In conclusion of the ticket, Goldendude15 reiterated that proof would be required to suffice a claim of self-defense.
9. P-003 is an image taken by Multiman155 showing that wttn2c attacked him and left Multiman155 at 1 heart.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

I. OWNER VETO NOT INVOKED

1. Although Plaintiff appeals a charge of Murder that was investigated, adjudicated, and actioned by employees of the DHS, Plaintiff is not arguing that the evidence of a murder as coded under the DCPolice plugin is invalid. (see Owner Veto in [2022] DCR 53).
2. Muggy21 killed wttn2c, and the DCPolice plugin failed to recognize that wttn2c had attempted to kill Plaintiff during the underlying controversy.
3. This is evident during wttn2c's first murder of Muggy21 in the same area (P-002); The plugin failed to notify Plaintiff that was he being attacked with a gun.

II. PLAINTIFF ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE

1. Self Defense under the Criminal Code Act is defined as the following: "

(11) Self Defence
(a) A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied."

2. In the face of a deadly assault with a firearm, Plaintiff used a reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made, threatened, or implied.
3. By requiring that the recognition of self-defense on out of RP evidence, DHS imposed an unreasonable and arbitrary evidentiary burden, violating Plaintiff’s right to due process; Any evidence that exists outside of DC should be voluntarily offered, not required for purposes of governmental business.
4. Within the Owner Veto of [2022] DCR 53, if it unreasonable for the DOJ to record all murders, the likewise should apply in reverse in claims of self-defense.
5. A credible eyewitness account, such as that of Multiman155, should satisfy the evidentiary threshold for a self-defense exception.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1) Under this Court's authority, Plaintiff prays for the dismissal of the charge of Murder levied against him.
2) A monetary award of nominal damages in the amount of $7,500.00, or an amount granted by Your Honour's discretionary powers under the Legal Damages Act for this type of damages.
3) A monetary award of legal fees in the maximum amount permitted under the Legal Damages Act.
4) Refund of all fines and compensation for time spent in jail (10 minutes).


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
P-001

Spoiler

See attachment 2.pdf.

P-002

Spoiler

[16:43:39] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Armourer wttn2c » yo somebody has to reset the prison mine this is getting unusuable
[16:43:42] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Citizen IamJeb_ » FR
[16:43:53] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Miner ThomasFGamer1 » i got between 30 to 40
[16:43:59] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] G | Public Defender AsexualDinosaur » Hello
[16:44:12] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] [+] YourLocalDiabeto
[16:44:20] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] G | Public Defender AsexualDinosaur » I am going to alexandria now, good bye
[16:44:22] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Police Officer Comet » DIABETES
[16:44:24] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Police Officer Comet » WB
[16:44:24] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] [-] AsexualDinosaur
[16:44:26] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] INTL | Multiman155 » bye dino
[16:44:31] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | [Staff] Police Officer YourLocalDiabeto » ty
[16:44:51] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT]
[16:44:51] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] SERVER » Get directions to any plot using /directions <plot> or /gps <plot>. Remember to use /gps stop to end your GPS!
[16:44:51] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT]
[16:45:21] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Police Officer Comet » t
[16:45:34] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Miner ThomasFGamer1 » anyone buying deepslate?
[16:45:38] [Render thread/WARN]: Ignoring player info update for unknown player 073e9759-3889-4d29-a2c5-e97ef8a132c8 ([UPDATE_DISPLAY_NAME])
[16:45:38] [Render thread/WARN]: Ignoring player info update for unknown player 073e9759-3889-4d29-a2c5-e97ef8a132c8 ([UPDATE_DISPLAY_NAME])
[16:45:38] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] [+] ItsCrabCraft
[16:46:23] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT]
[16:46:23] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] AD » Looking to get a new enchanted armor and tool set? Or need your current one mended? Head to: Enchanted Arsenal - Inalite
[16:46:23] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT]
[16:46:23] [Render thread/WARN]: Unable to play unknown soundEvent: minecraft:fx.whiz
[16:46:24] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] [-] Inalite
[16:46:34] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] G | Designer ItsCrabCraft » ou
[16:46:35] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] 911 wttn2c has murdered you! Type /911 to report them to the authorities
[16:46:36] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] Teleporting...
[16:46:36] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You died! You have been taken to Aventura Clinic.
[16:46:48] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Magistrate Mug » i was murdered.
[16:46:51] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Citizen IamJeb_ » GREAT

P-003

Spoiler

Witnesses:
Multiman155


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 26th day of October 2025

 

[BrownBerry]

Proof of Representation

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Kaiserin_, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of Muggy21 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 86

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.

 

[Vennefly]

Your Honour, the Commonwealth is present.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, the Commonwealth is present.

You shall have 48 hours to present an answer to complaint

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM (Rule 5.5)

Your Honor,

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

I. The Plaintiff fails to state a claim
Even assuming arguendo that every factual allegation in the Complaint is true, the Plaintiff has not pleaded any cognizable cause of action against the Department of Homeland Security. The Complaint is, at its core, a narrative of perceived unfairness. Not a statement of a legal wrong.

To survive dismissal, a complaint must do more than express dissatisfaction. It must identify a recognized legal theory and allege facts that, if proven, would establish each of its elements. The Plaintiff has done neither. Nowhere does the Complaint articulate what tort, statutory violation, or breach of legal duty the Department is alleged to have committed. The pleading merely describes an administrative exchange and a disagreement over outcome. Matters that are not, in themselves, justiciable.

Courts do not infer causes of action where none are stated. The Plaintiff's filing does not allege that the Department acted outside its lawful authority, nor that it committed any act recognised by law as giving rise to civil liability. Without such a claim, there is nothing for this Court to adjudicate.

Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state any Claim upon which relief may be granted and must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Even if, however, this Honourable Court were to generously construe the filing as an appeal of the Plaintiff’s underlying charge rather than a civil complaint, it would nevertheless fail. Appeals must identify an error of law, procedure, or fact with the initial summary charge against which an appeal is lodged. The Plaintiff has not identified any of these.

The mere dissatisfaction with a DHS determination or their evidentiary standard does not transform a narrative into a valid appeal. Without a properly identified error warranting review, the filing remains procedurally defective and incapable of invoking this Court’s appellate function. Accordingly, even under the most generous interpretation, the matter must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5.

II. Plaintiff misinterprets the Owner Veto in BenTDM v. Commonwealth
Further, Plaintiff's interpretation of BenTDM v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 53 is misplaced. In that case, an Owner Veto was issued expressly to prevent exactly this kind of litigation posture. I.e., retroactively relitigating murders by reconstructing who "started" a fight or whether murder was committed, without reliable plugin recognition. The Staff Team vetoed the case "on the grounds that the DemocracyPolice plugin is a staff matter", warning that accepting such suits would make “murder […] near impossible to prove unless the Department of Justice had recordings of when the fight first began to when it ended,” which would be “unrealistic and unfair” and would “discourage[] the policing aspect of this server.”

The policy rationale of that veto is clear: the courts should not entertain after-the-fact evidentiary fishing expeditions to reconstruct initiation of combat when the plugin does not reflect it. Plaintiff's reading flips DCR 53 on its head, asking the Court to bless a retrospective self-defence exception precisely because the DCPolice plugin did not register the prior aggression. That is the very outcome DCR 53 sought to avoid.

Accordingly, under the controlling policy announced in the Owner Veto of BenTDM v. Commonwealth, which this Court has previously respected by dismissing that matter "due to owner veto", the absence of plugin-recognized initiation pre-empts Plaintiff's retrospective self-defence theory as a matter of server governance and justiciability. This suit therefore lacks any Claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

III. Relief sought
Considering that the Plaintiff has failed to state any valid claim upon which Relief can be granted, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

a. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice; and​

b. Deny all Relief sought by the Plaintiff;​

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

 

[Vennefly]

Your Honour,

The Commonwealth respectfully requests an extension of the deadline to submit an Answer to Complaint until Friday 31 October at 22:00 Central European Time. The Commonwealth's counsel will be away for the next two days in order to work as an Electoral Officer for the Dutch national parliamentary elections. This will take up two full days of counsel's time, preventing him from writing an Answer to Complaint prior to the current deadline.

The Commonwealth will, of course, ensure that further filings are completed swiftly. Moreover, this brief extension will not delay proceedings in any material way: during this period, the Plaintiff also has the opportunity to respond to the Commonwealth’s pending Motion to Dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor, permission to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss?

 

[dearev]

Your Honor, permission to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss?

you may

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

The Commonwealth respectfully requests an extension of the deadline to submit an Answer to Complaint until Friday 31 October at 22:00 Central European Time. The Commonwealth's counsel will be away for the next two days in order to work as an Electoral Officer for the Dutch national parliamentary elections. This will take up two full days of counsel's time, preventing him from writing an Answer to Complaint prior to the current deadline.

The Commonwealth will, of course, ensure that further filings are completed swiftly. Moreover, this brief extension will not delay proceedings in any material way: during this period, the Plaintiff also has the opportunity to respond to the Commonwealth’s pending Motion to Dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Granted.

 

[BrownBerry]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM (Rule 5.5)

Your Honor,

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

I. The Plaintiff fails to state a claim
Even assuming arguendo that every factual allegation in the Complaint is true, the Plaintiff has not pleaded any cognizable cause of action against the Department of Homeland Security. The Complaint is, at its core, a narrative of perceived unfairness. Not a statement of a legal wrong.

To survive dismissal, a complaint must do more than express dissatisfaction. It must identify a recognized legal theory and allege facts that, if proven, would establish each of its elements. The Plaintiff has done neither. Nowhere does the Complaint articulate what tort, statutory violation, or breach of legal duty the Department is alleged to have committed. The pleading merely describes an administrative exchange and a disagreement over outcome. Matters that are not, in themselves, justiciable.

Courts do not infer causes of action where none are stated. The Plaintiff's filing does not allege that the Department acted outside its lawful authority, nor that it committed any act recognised by law as giving rise to civil liability. Without such a claim, there is nothing for this Court to adjudicate.

Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state any Claim upon which relief may be granted and must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Even if, however, this Honourable Court were to generously construe the filing as an appeal of the Plaintiff’s underlying charge rather than a civil complaint, it would nevertheless fail. Appeals must identify an error of law, procedure, or fact with the initial summary charge against which an appeal is lodged. The Plaintiff has not identified any of these.

The mere dissatisfaction with a DHS determination or their evidentiary standard does not transform a narrative into a valid appeal. Without a properly identified error warranting review, the filing remains procedurally defective and incapable of invoking this Court’s appellate function. Accordingly, even under the most generous interpretation, the matter must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5.

II. Plaintiff misinterprets the Owner Veto in BenTDM v. Commonwealth
Further, Plaintiff's interpretation of BenTDM v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 53 is misplaced. In that case, an Owner Veto was issued expressly to prevent exactly this kind of litigation posture. I.e., retroactively relitigating murders by reconstructing who "started" a fight or whether murder was committed, without reliable plugin recognition. The Staff Team vetoed the case "on the grounds that the DemocracyPolice plugin is a staff matter", warning that accepting such suits would make “murder […] near impossible to prove unless the Department of Justice had recordings of when the fight first began to when it ended,” which would be “unrealistic and unfair” and would “discourage[] the policing aspect of this server.”

The policy rationale of that veto is clear: the courts should not entertain after-the-fact evidentiary fishing expeditions to reconstruct initiation of combat when the plugin does not reflect it. Plaintiff's reading flips DCR 53 on its head, asking the Court to bless a retrospective self-defence exception precisely because the DCPolice plugin did not register the prior aggression. That is the very outcome DCR 53 sought to avoid.

Accordingly, under the controlling policy announced in the Owner Veto of BenTDM v. Commonwealth, which this Court has previously respected by dismissing that matter "due to owner veto", the absence of plugin-recognized initiation pre-empts Plaintiff's retrospective self-defence theory as a matter of server governance and justiciability. This suit therefore lacks any Claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

III. Relief sought
Considering that the Plaintiff has failed to state any valid claim upon which Relief can be granted, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

a. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice; and​

b. Deny all Relief sought by the Plaintiff;​

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Your Honor, in response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

Legal Standing

§6(7)(d) of the Criminal Code Act says:

Players retain the right to appeal their summary offense convictions in court even if they are fined under this Act. If a player's summary offense conviction is overturned, and said player was fined under this Act, then the Department of Homeland Security shall refund their fine in full.

That is what Plaintiff is doing in this case. We are disputing the Department of Homeland Security's summary conviction of Plaintiff. A civil complaint must be the means by which summary convictions are challenged. If the Court believes Plaintiff should exercise their legal right of appeal in some other way, then only a dismissal without prejudice to enable Plaintiff to re-file properly.

§7(2) of the Criminal Code Act also states that "[summary offences] can be contested before a judicial officer after issue."

Appeals must identify an error of law, procedure, or fact with the initial summary charge against which an appeal is lodged. The Plaintiff has not identified any of these.

Plaintiff has identified an error of fact. Plaintiff was summarily convicted by the DHS of murder, when they were not guilty of murder by reason of self defence. The DHS made an error of fact by convicting Plaintiff, as alleged in the Complaint. Even if Plaintiff's claims are disproven, we have properly alleged a claim that must be resolved at trial.

Owner Veto

The Commonwealth misunderstands the circumstances of the Owner Veto. In that case, the Plaintiff (the criminal defendant) made a bare assertion that the police plugin was not enough to convict him. As the Owner Veto points out, that would make it impossible for the DOJ/DHS to convict. It would deprive them of their primary source of evidence. It would be like saying IRL police could not use DNA evidence; it would make it impossible for the Commonwealth to prove a defendant's guilt. But the Owner Veto leaves the door open to defendants proving their innocence.

The plain precedent of the Owner Veto in that case is that the police plugin provides presumptive evidence of criminal offences. When the police plugin says that a crime has been committed, the usual burden of proof is reversed; the Commonwealth has discharged their burden and the defendant must prove their innocence, rather that the Commonwealth proving their guilt. And therein lies the distinction between the two cases: in this case, Plaintiff is prepared to meet the high bar of overcoming that burden. Plaintiff will present screenshots and witness testimony in support. In the Commonwealth's cited case, the criminal defendant had no such evidence; it was on that, separate basis which the Owner Veto was made.

To reiterate, nothing in this case would make it nearly impossible to convict defendants; the only burden is imposed on defendants, not the Commonwealth. The Owner Veto is, therefore, not applicable. There are no negative RP implications about policing becoming impossible.

For these reasons, the Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

I would also suggest to the Court that Owner Vetoes do not constitute judicial precedent that the courts can apply. If the Owner Veto does apply in this case, then it is for staff to make that conclusion, not the Court.