Lawsuit: Pending Noah7899 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 50

[Etwi_]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONTCIVIL ACTION

noah7899 (Represented by Etwi_)Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of RedmontDefendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On July 23rd I entered the DOC vault. I didn't go into the vault with the intent to steal. I just wanted to explore since I am a new player. I left as soon as someone told me the area was restricted. I then found out that I was charged with bank robbery with insufficient evidence.

I. PARTIES

1. noah7899 - Plaintiff
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont - Defendant
3. pricelessAgrari - Witness
4. Urb5n - Witness

II. FACTS

1. On July 23, 2025, the Plaintiff, a new server member with under 24 hours playtime, entered the Redmont National Bank while exploring the Reville district.
2. The Plaintiff did step inside the vault chamber but at no point used tools to break locks, triggered no alarms, or removed any property.
3. The only tangible evidence consists of:
   
   • A high‑angle screenshot showing the Plaintiff’s nameplate through a vault grate, and coordinates in a screenshot placing the Plaintiff inside the vault room but showing no criminal act beyond mere presence. Both taken by pricelessAgrari.
4. No staff logs or in‑game alerts indicated forced entry or theft.
5. Upon realizing the area was restricted after being notified by player Urb5n, the Plaintiff immediately exited the vault.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff concedes vault entry under Criminal Code §23 but admits to trespassing as defined under Criminal Code §12, emphasizing no theft, no damage, and no alarm activation.
2. As a new player unfamiliar with server rules, the Plaintiff made an honest mistake believing the vault area was accessible.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEFThe Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Reduce the charge from Bank Robbery (§23) to Trespass (§12), in recognition of the Plaintiff’s lack of criminal intent and immediate compliance upon being informed of the restriction, pursuant to Information - Laws Part I §5 (Sentencing Discretion).
2. Order the refund of legal fees incurred by the Plaintiff’s counsel as a result of defending against this charge, totaling $3,000, pursuant to the Legal Damages Act §9 (Legal Fees), which authorizes recovery of reasonable legal costs when charges are reduced or improperly applied.

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 24th day of July 2025.

Etwi_
Counsel for Plaintiff

 

[dearev]

Your honor, i would like to file an amicus brief on previous court precedent on this matter

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your honor, i would like to file an amicus brief on previous court precedent on this matter

Granted. You have 24 hours to file your brief.

 

[AmityBlamity]

I am dismissing this case Sua Sponte, under Rule 2.1 due to lack of standing.

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The first condition is met. Plaintiff was affected by an application of the law (in this case, being charged under the Criminal Code Act). However, where plaintiff falls short are the second and third conditions.

Let us examine the charge of "Bank Robbery" from the Criminal Code Act (emphasis mine):

23 - Bank Robbery
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 30 Penalty Units; 10 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) trespasses specifically within the bank’s vault.

Whether or not a player has taken gold or diamonds from the vault is irrelevant. The remedy that plaintiff seeks, a request to "downgrade" the charge from "Bank Robbery" to "Trespassing" is not possible. By its very nature, Bank Robbery overrides Trespass. It is a very specific charge applied to this very specific situation. Per the sentencing guidelines of the Criminal Code Act (emphasis mine):

(3) A judicial officer may impose a lesser sentence than the maximum provided for the offence, or a combination of penalties, unless—
(a) the law specifically requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty; or
(b) the offence expressly prohibits alternatives to the maximum sentence.

As Bank Robbery is a charge specifically for bank trespass, I cannot reduce the crime to a lesser sentence. I sympathize with the plaintiff that there is some confusion here. The charge of Bank Robbery does indeed imply that the accused had stolen something from the bank. Though the text of the law is clear, I will be writing to the legislative to express my opinion that a clarification would not be untoward.

However, the facts are as such. Plaintiff has admitted to entering the bank vault, thus warranting a charge of Bank Robbery. Thusly, I find the cause of injury was not against the law, and that plaintiff does not have grounds to seek legal remedy.

This case is dismissed with prejudice. The court thanks all involved.