Lawsuit: Pending Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont and Vernicia [2026] DCR 148

[Slime_Mario]

Case Filing

​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ​

CIVIL ACTION​

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Homeland Security) & Vernicia
Defendants

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Vernicia evicted the Plaintiff from a leased office in Lil Rossiya solely because he publicly disagreed with her policy opinions in the community Discord. When the Plaintiff continued to renew his lease lawfully through server commands, Vernicia prompted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fine him repeatedly without legal justification.
DHS debited three fines totaling $720.00 from the Plaintiff for alleged "Illicit Renting" under the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) Part VII, Section 11. However, Illicit Renting requires a tenant to rent property despite "clearly posted restrictions" on the premises. No restrictions were ever posted at the property. DHS issued these fines without notice and without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to respond. Had the property been inspected, no restriction would have been found.
The Plaintiff was subsequently removed from the property twice without refunding his prepaid rent properly, and second time the leasehold was transferred directly to Vernicia, automatically vaulting all of the Plaintiff's blocks and items. The Plaintiff brings this action to reverse the unlawful fines, obtain full restitution, recover unrefunded rent, and hold both Defendants accountable for wrongful eviction and due process violations.

I. PARTIES

1. Slime_Mario (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)
3. Vernicia (Defendant)

II. FACTS​

1. The Plaintiff leased 432office-1 in Lil Rossiya from Defendant Vernicia for $25.00 per 30d. (P-001)
2. All timestamps in this Complaint are stated in server time (UTC).
3. On August 10, 2026, Defendant Vernicia advocated in Discord for the removal of the /find shop search command. (P-002)
4. On August 11, 2026, at 19:00 UTC, the Plaintiff publicly disagreed with Vernicia, stating that removing /find would protect established shop owners from market competition. (P-002)
5. On August 12, 2026, at 06:47 UTC, Vernicia evicted the Plaintiff from 432office-1. The eviction took effect through the Realty system, which notified him that his lease was scheduled for termination on August 15, 2026. Every Console notice in this Complaint records an eviction initiated by Vernicia. A tenant may reset a scheduled termination by ending and immediately re-taking the lease through the server rental commands. (P-003)
6. Vernicia alleged no lease violation, property damage, inactivity, or rule breach by the Plaintiff. (P-003)
7. On August 12, 2026, at 16:08 UTC, the Plaintiff terminated and immediately re-rented 432office-1 through the server's ordinary rental commands, receiving an automated refund of $25.00 and paying $25.00. This reset the scheduled termination. He did so as any tenant may, and at that time no restriction of any kind had been posted at the property prohibiting him from doing so. That payment predates the transaction ledger extract at Exhibit P-006, which is why only its subsequent refund of $23.84 appears there. (P-010)
8. On August 13, 2026, at 23:06 UTC, during a Discord discussion on chestshop taxes, the Plaintiff argued for policies supporting small shops. Vernicia referred to the Plaintiff as an "evicted guy" and declared him "forever banned from Lil Rossiya." The Plaintiff noted that these messages did not alter in-game lease rights. (P-005)
9. During that same exchange, Vernicia stated to the Plaintiff: "Thingis work out for many players who actualy are not complaining , if u was not contantly toxic on me i woud even give u refund for your rent like to others" [sic]. Vernicia thereby confirmed that she refunds rent to other tenants, and that she withheld the same treatment from the Plaintiff because of his criticism of her. (P-005)
10. On August 13, 2026, at 23:52 UTC, while that exchange was still in progress, Vernicia evicted the Plaintiff a second time. The Console notified him that his lease was scheduled for termination on August 16, 2026. Again she alleged no breach of tenancy. (P-003)
11. Two minutes later, at 23:54 UTC, Vernicia sent the Plaintiff a direct Discord message stating: "Hi , u are getting evicted from all properties in Lil Rossiya without any futher option to extent the rent. Any futher attempts to bypass this will result in lawsuite" [sic]. (P-004)
12. At 23:55 UTC, Vernicia announced in public Discord chat that she had served a "manual notice" and threatened to report the Plaintiff to DHS for trespassing. (P-005)
13. The Plaintiff inspected 432office-1 and confirmed that no restriction or notice prohibiting him from renting was posted on the lectern or anywhere in the region. (P-008, P-009)
14. At no point did Vernicia post any restriction or prohibition at 432office-1. Her purported ban existed solely in private Discord messages. (P-002, P-004, P-005, P-008)
15. On August 14, 2026, at 01:40 UTC, the Plaintiff again reset his lease on 432office-1, receiving an automated refund of $23.84 and paying $25.00. This reset the second eviction. (P-006)
16. On August 14, 2026, at 09:32 UTC, DHS debited a fine of $250.00 from the Plaintiff's account for "Illicit Renting," referencing DHS Ticket 38152. The Plaintiff received no prior notice and no opportunity to contest the charge. He was not online: 09:32 UTC corresponds to 05:32 in his own timezone, and he was asleep. The sum was deducted automatically, without any message, summons, or requirement that he acknowledge or even observe it. (P-006)
17. That penalty was not accompanied by any forced eviction. DHS imposed the fine and left the Plaintiff's tenancy of 432office-1 undisturbed.
18. Under RCCA Part VII, Section 11, the maximum penalty for Illicit Renting is 2 Civil Penalty Units ($240.00). The $250.00 fine exceeded the statutory maximum.
19. On August 16, 2026, at 16:07 UTC, the Plaintiff reset his lease on 432office-1, receiving an automated refund of $22.83 and paying $25.00. He was at that time still unaware that any penalty had been imposed on August 14. (P-006)
20. Shortly after that payment the Plaintiff was removed from 432office-1. No refund of the $25.00 he had just paid was issued. The region was thereupon advertised in the server chat as available to rent. (P-006)
21. At 16:30 UTC, believing the removal to have been an error and seeing the office openly advertised as available, the Plaintiff rented it again, paying a further $25.00. (P-006)
22. On August 16, 2026, at 16:30 UTC and 16:33 UTC, DHS issued two successive $240.00 fines against the Plaintiff for Illicit Renting, again without prior notice or hearing. (P-006)
23. At 16:43 UTC, DHS refunded the initial $250.00 fine, and at 16:44 UTC issued a replacement fine of $240.00 ("Corrected Fine Amount for Illicit Renting x1 fine 7491"). (P-006)
24. In total, three $240.00 penalties currently stand against the Plaintiff, totaling $720.00. (P-006)
25. The lectern book at 432office-1 has never displayed the Plaintiff's username. Its pages are reproduced at Exhibit P-008, photographed on August 16, 2026. (P-008)
26. The Plaintiff was then removed from 432office-1 a second time. Again no refund was issued. This totalled $50.00 in pre-paid rent paid on August 16, of which nothing was returned to him. (P-006)
27. Neither of the two credits appearing in the ledger relates to that $50.00. The $23.84 credited on August 14 refunded the lease cycle the Plaintiff paid for before the ledger extract begins; the $22.83 credited at 16:07 on August 16 refunded the cycle paid for on August 14. Both were issued automatically because on those occasions the Plaintiff himself ended the lease early. No refund of any kind followed the payments of 16:07 and 16:30 on August 16. (P-006)
28. The absence of an automated refund mechanism for a transferred lease would not explain the failure. DHS moved funds by hand that same afternoon: at 16:43 UTC it credited $250.00 to the Plaintiff's balance while fixing its own miscalculated penalty. (P-006)
29. The leasehold for 432office-1 was transferred directly to Vernicia, listing her simultaneously as landlord and renter. (P-007)
30. Upon the transfer the contents of 432office-1 were automatically vaulted. The Plaintiff's blocks and items were recoverable, but the experience stored within the furnaces he had constructed there was not, experience being incapable of vaulting. That experience was lost. (P-007)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Wrongful Seizure of Property & Denial of Due Process against the Commonwealth of Redmont ​

1. Under RCCA Part XI, Section 4, a government officer commits a violation by seizing property without lawful authority, for which the remedy is restitution. Account balances constitute property.
2. Furthermore, under RCCA Part XI, Section 6, making a decision affecting rights or interests without notice and a hearing warrants reversal of the decision.
3. The Commonwealth lacked lawful authority to fine the Plaintiff because no Illicit Renting occurred under RCCA Part VII, Section 11, which strictly requires "clearly posted restrictions prohibiting the tenant from renting said region." Because no restrictions were ever posted at the property, DHS seized $720.00 from the Plaintiff's balance without legal basis, without advance notice, and without an opportunity to be heard.
4. The Plaintiff requests reversal of all three standing penalties and full restitution of the $720.00 seized

2. Wrongful Eviction, against Defendant Vernicia​

1. Under RCCA Part VII, Section 5, a person commits a violation if they evict a tenant without providing an owed refund (§5(b)) or in retaliation for exercising legal rights (§5(c)).
2. Under the Property Standards Act (PSA) Part IV, Section 21(4), a tenant who is evicted "must receive a full refund of any prepaid rent," subject only to exceptions for a tenant permanently banned or deported, neither of which applies to the Plaintiff.
3. Vernicia terminated the Plaintiff's tenancy in direct retaliation for his public policy commentary on Discord, in violation of Section 5(c). The chronology admits no innocent reading. The Plaintiff criticised her position on the /find command at 19:00 UTC on August 11; less than twelve hours later she scheduled his lease for termination. He argued for chestshop tax policy at 23:06 UTC on August 13; forty-eight minutes into that same exchange, at 23:54 UTC, she declared him barred from all her properties with "no futher option to extent the rent," and announced it publicly a minute later. Twice the Plaintiff criticised Vernicia in public, and twice his tenancy was terminated within hours.
4. She has never alleged a single breach of his tenancy, because none occurred. She said as much herself during that exchange: "if u was not contantly toxic on me i woud even give u refund for your rent like to others," expressly conditioning the refund on his political speech.
5. Vernicia is thus also answerable under Section 5(b). She had stated plainly that she would not refund the Plaintiff as she refunds her other tenants. She then procured his removal with the DHS ticket, and no refund was given for that removal.
6. She is the only party to this action who both wished the refund withheld and profited from its being withheld. The Plaintiff does not, however, contend that Vernicia controlled the mechanism of repayment at the moment of eviction. That was DHS, and the failure to comply with Section 21(4) is pleaded against the Commonwealth at Claim 3. Vernicia's liability under Section 5(b) lies in having sought and obtained an eviction while intentionally ensuring that his prepaid rent went unreturned.
7. The Plaintiff seeks 50 Civil Penalty Units ($6,000.00) against Vernicia, and recovery of the $50.00 in unrefunded rent against Vernicia.

3. Wrongful Eviction, against the Commonwealth of Redmont​

1. Under RCCA Part VII, Section 5(b), a person commits a violation by evicting a tenant "without providing a refund where one is owed."
2. PSA Part IV, Section 21(4) establishes that the refund is owed: "If a tenant is evicted, they must receive a full refund of any prepaid rent," subject only to exceptions for a tenant permanently banned or deported, neither of which applies to the Plaintiff.
3. Section 5 is not confined to landlords. It provides that "a person commits a violation if the person... evicts a tenant," whereas Section 4 immediately preceding it begins "being a landlord, enters a tenant's rented region." The drafters restricted that provision to landlords and did not restrict this one. Section 5 therefore reaches whoever performs the eviction. On August 16 that was DHS. DHS removed the Plaintiff from 432office-1 twice on the afternoon of August 16, and on the second occasion transferred the leasehold to Vernicia. He had paid $25.00 at 16:07 and, after the first removal left the office advertised as available, a further $25.00 at 16:30. Neither payment was refunded. While each removal was separately an eviction without the refund Section 21(4) requires, the Plaintiff seeks a single penalty in respect of both.
4. The two credits appearing in the ledger relate to earlier lease cycles: the $23.84 refunded a cycle paid for before the ledger extract begins, and the $22.83 refunded the cycle paid for on August 14. Neither touches the $50.00.
5. The Plaintiff anticipates that the rental system may provide no automated means of refunding a tenant whose lease is transferred or forcefully removed, and does not dispute it. The obligation of a refund is not conditioned on administrative convenience, and the capacity to move funds by hand was exercised that very afternoon as at 16:43 DHS credited $250.00 to the Plaintiff's balance. Whoever could credit $250.00 at 16:43 could have credited $50.00 for rent taken at 16:07 and 16:30.
6. Nor can DHS answer that the landlord did not want the Plaintiff refunded. While Vernicia had said as much publicly three days earlier, whether she repeated it in DHS Ticket 38152 is a matter presently known only to the Defendants. Section 21(4) imposes the obligation of a refund on the entity carrying out the eviction. A public officer may not ignore a statutory duty in favor of the private party who complained to him. If anything, a request to illegaly withhold a refund ought to have prompted the officer to examine the complaint further.
7. That examination would have ended the matter, as no signs or lecterns were posted with the Plantiff's name to prohibit him from renting. DHS carried out an eviction it had no authority to carry out.
8. The Plaintiff seeks 50 Civil Penalty Units ($6,000.00) against the Commonwealth of Redmont.

4. Consequential Damages: Loss of Enjoyment, against Defendant Vernicia​

1. Under RCCA Part III, Section 5(1)(a)(iii), a plaintiff is entitled to consequential damages for Loss of Enjoyment, evaluated under the reasonable person standard in Atreides Clients (Class Action Group) v. Atreides [2024] FCR 87.
2. Vernicia's retaliatory eviction deprived the Plaintiff of an office he had rented continuously and lawfully. When the leasehold was transferred, his blocks and items were vaulted and remain recoverable, but the experience stored in the furance experience farms he had constructed there was lost, as experience is incapable of vaulting. The Plaintiff acknowledges that he holds no record of the quantity of experience lost and seeks no separate damages count; he pleads it as part of the deprivation of the office. A reasonable person in his position would suffer a comparable loss of enjoyment.
3. The Plaintiff requests $2,500.00 in consequential damages.

5. Punitive Damages, against Defendant Vernicia​

1. Under RCCA Part III, Section 3, punitive damages may be awarded where a defendant's conduct is outrageous, involves bad faith, an abuse of power, or repeated misconduct (§3(2)(b)(ii), (iv), (v)).
2. Vernicia engaged in willful misconduct by retaliating against lawful speech, threatening baseless criminal action, and misusing DHS enforcement. Punitive damages are warranted to deter such abuse of landlord authority.
3. The Plaintiff requests Punitive Damages in an amount determined by the Court.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Reverse all three standing administrative penalties ($720.00 total) issued under DHS Ticket 38152 for Illicit Renting.
2. Order the Commonwealth to make full restitution to the Plaintiff in the amount of $720.00.
3. Award 50 Civil Penalty Units ($6,000.00) against Defendant Vernicia on Claim 2 (Wrongful Eviction).
4. Award 50 Civil Penalty Units ($6,000.00) against the Commonwealth of Redmont on Claim 3 (Wrongful Eviction), for evicting the Plaintiff without lawful authority and without providing a refund where one was owed.
5. Order the Defendant Vernicia to pay the Plaintiff $50.00 in unrefunded prepaid rent.
6. Award $2,500.00 in Consequential Damages (Loss of Enjoyment) against Defendant Vernicia on Claim 2.
7. Award Punitive Damages against Defendant Vernicia in an amount determined by the Court.
8. Award Legal Fees pursuant to RCCA Part III, Section 7(2)(a) and (d) (30% of direct damages/penalties, subject to the $3,000.00 District Court mandatory minimum).

EVIDENCE

• P-001: Screenshot of the /rl info 432office-1 command establishing rental rate of $25.00 per 30d.
  
  • 
• P-002: Discord transcript (attached below in p-002.txt) and screenshots of the /findcommand discussion (August 10–11, 2026).
  • 
    
  • 
• P-003: Screenshots of Console lease termination notices (August 12–13, 2026).
  • 
• P-004: Screenshot of mail message from Vernicia threatening eviction and lawsuit (August 13, 2026)
  • 
• P-005: Discord transcript (attached below in p-005.txt) and screenshots of the chestshop tax discussion and DHS trespassing threats (August 13, 2026).
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
• P-006: Screenshot of economy transaction ledger showing rent payments, DHS fines, and corrections (August 13–16, 2026).
  • 
• P-007: Screenshot of /rl info 432office-1showing region transfer to Vernicia as both landlord and renter.
  • 
• P-008: Screenshots of every page of the lectern book at 432office-1, photographed on the 16th of August, 2026., showing that the Plaintiff's username does not appear and that no restriction prohibiting him from renting is recorded.
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
• P-009: Screenshot of 432office-1 showing no posted signage or notice restricting rental.
  • 
• P-010: Screenshot of economy transaction ledger excerpt for August 12, 2026, evidencing the reset of the lease at 16:08 UTC (refund $25.00, payment $25.00).
  • 

WITNESSES​

• None

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 17th day of August, 2026.

 

[Slime_Mario]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF IMMEDIATE INSPECTION AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an order directing the immediate inspection and preservation of any posted notices at 432office-1, Lil Rossiya, and in support thereof alleges:

1. Every penalty imposed on the Plaintiff was imposed under Redmont Civil Code Act Part VII, Section 11, which is engaged only where a tenant rents "despite the landlord having clearly posted restrictions prohibiting the tenant from renting said region."
2. The Plaintiff's case is that no restriction bearing his username has ever been posted at 432office-1. He inspected the lectern on August 13, 2026 and found none, and inspected the book again on August 16, 2026 and found none.
3. Presently, a lectern book may be edited, and a sign may be placed, by any person with access to the region, including Defendant Vernicia.
4. The Plaintiff does not have access to the /inspect command.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Direct a government employee nominated by the Court who is not a party to this action, to record the contents of every page of the signs, books, or other posted communication located in the plot leading to 432office-1.
2. Direct that the /inspect command be used upon any such posting, and that its output be recorded.
3. Order both Defendants, and any person acting at their direction, to refrain from creating, editing, removing, or otherwise altering any lectern, book, sign, or other posted communication at 432office-1 or its approaches until this matter is determined.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Vernicia and @Matthew100x (or any Prosecutor) is commanded to appear in the District Court in the case of Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont and Vernicia [2026] DCR 148

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.

 

[ameslap]

Your Honor,

I am present to represent Vernicia.

Spoiler: Representation

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF IMMEDIATE INSPECTION AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an order directing the immediate inspection and preservation of any posted notices at 432office-1, Lil Rossiya, and in support thereof alleges:

1. Every penalty imposed on the Plaintiff was imposed under Redmont Civil Code Act Part VII, Section 11, which is engaged only where a tenant rents "despite the landlord having clearly posted restrictions prohibiting the tenant from renting said region."
2. The Plaintiff's case is that no restriction bearing his username has ever been posted at 432office-1. He inspected the lectern on August 13, 2026 and found none, and inspected the book again on August 16, 2026 and found none.
3. Presently, a lectern book may be edited, and a sign may be placed, by any person with access to the region, including Defendant Vernicia.
4. The Plaintiff does not have access to the /inspect command.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Direct a government employee nominated by the Court who is not a party to this action, to record the contents of every page of the signs, books, or other posted communication located in the plot leading to 432office-1.
2. Direct that the /inspect command be used upon any such posting, and that its output be recorded.
3. Order both Defendants, and any person acting at their direction, to refrain from creating, editing, removing, or otherwise altering any lectern, book, sign, or other posted communication at 432office-1 or its approaches until this matter is determined.

Response:
Your Honor, we respectfully request that this motion be denied.

The Plaintiff has already preserved the "evidence" of the lectern and surrounding property from the relevant period.

The Plaintiff has also provided no evidence that Vernicia has attempted or intends to destroy or alter any relevant evidence.

Finally, this request is unnecessarily broad. It would prohibit Vernicia from creating, editing, or removing any posted communication at the property for the duration of this case, including restrictions or information not related to it. This would make it impossible for Vernicia to manage her property.

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am appearing for the Commonwealth of Redmont.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

I am present to represent Vernicia.

Spoiler: Representation

View attachment 96837

Response:
Your Honor, we respectfully request that this motion be denied.

The Plaintiff has already preserved the "evidence" of the lectern and surrounding property from the relevant period.

The Plaintiff has also provided no evidence that Vernicia has attempted or intends to destroy or alter any relevant evidence.

Finally, this request is unnecessarily broad. It would prohibit Vernicia from creating, editing, or removing any posted communication at the property for the duration of this case, including restrictions or information not related to it. This would make it impossible for Vernicia to manage her property.

Thank you.

I am appearing for the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Please prepare your Answers within 48 hours. The Motion is not dispositive and a abeyance will not be made.

 

[ameslap]

Please prepare your Answers within 48 hours. The Motion is not dispositive and a abeyance will not be made.

Your Honor,

I request a 48-hour extension. I will be single-parenting for at least a day, starting in 1 hour, and will not be able to submit on time. Everything is fine, Wifeslap is on a little gals trip.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am also requesting a 48-hour extension to work on this over the weekend.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

I request a 48-hour extension. I will be single-parenting for at least a day, starting in 1 hour, and will not be able to submit on time. Everything is fine, Wifeslap is on a little gals trip.

Tell the child to write the answer. (DENIED!) Extension granted.

I am also requesting a 48-hour extension to work on this over the weekend.

Granted.

 

[Matthew100x]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The Commonwealth of Redmont, by and through Attorney General Matthew100x, submits this Answer to the Complaint.

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defendant AFFIRMS Fact 1. The Plaintiff leased 432office-1 in Lil Rossiya from Defendant Vernicia.

2. The Defendant does not contest Fact 2.

3. The Defendant does not contest Fact 3.

4. The Defendant does not contest Fact 4.

5. The Defendant does not contest Fact 5. The Defendant further states that the alleged actions of Defendant Vernicia do not, standing alone, establish any culpability on the part of the Commonwealth.

6. The Defendant does not contest Fact 6 and further states that the allegation concerns Defendant Vernicia and does not independently establish liability against the Commonwealth.

7. The Defendant does not contest Fact 7 and further states that the allegation does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

8. The Defendant does not contest Fact 8 and further states that the allegation concerns Defendant Vernicia and does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

9. The Defendant does not contest Fact 9 and further states that the allegation concerns Defendant Vernicia and does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

10. The Defendant does not contest Fact 10.

11. The Defendant does not contest Fact 11.

12. The Defendant does not contest Fact 12.

13. The Defendant does not contest Fact 13.

14. The Defendant does not contest Fact 14.

15. The Defendant does not contest Fact 15.

16. The Defendant AFFIRMS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Fact 16. The Defendant affirms that DHS assessed an initial $250.00 penalty for Illicit Renting. The Defendant denies, however, any implication that the Plaintiff lacked notice that his continued re-renting of the property was prohibited. The Plaintiff had repeatedly re-rented a region after the landlord requested that he cease doing so. The Defendant further denies that a pre-enforcement hearing was legally required for the assessment of an administrative violation. Administrative violations are enforceable through an immediate penalty without a formal trial and may thereafter be contested before a judicial officer. (see Part II, § 7(5), Redmont Civil Code Act).

17. The Defendant does not contest that the initial penalty was not accompanied by a forced eviction. The Defendant further states that, by this point, the Plaintiff had been placed on notice that continued prohibited renting could result in enforcement for Illicit Renting.

18. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the initial $250.00 penalty exceeded the maximum penalty of two Civil Penalty Units applicable to Illicit Renting. The Defendant states, however, that this error was subsequently corrected: the original $250.00 penalty was refunded and replaced by a lawful maximum penalty of $240.00. Illicit Renting carries a remedy of up to two Civil Penalty Units. (see Part VII, § 11, Redmont Civil Code Act). Accordingly, no additional $10.00 refund remains outstanding.

19. The Defendant does not contest Fact 19 and further states that the allegation does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

20. The Defendant does not contest Fact 20 and further states that the allegation does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

21. The Defendant does not contest Fact 21 and further states that the allegation does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

22. The Defendant AFFIRMS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Fact 22. The Defendant affirms that DHS assessed two successive $240.00 penalties after the Plaintiff again rented the region despite having previously been directed to cease doing so. The Defendant denies that a pre-enforcement hearing was required. Illicit Renting is classified as an Administrative Violation, and administrative violations are enforceable by a government entity through an immediate penalty without the necessity of a formal trial, subject to subsequent judicial contest. (see Part II, § 7(5), § 9(5), and Part VII, § 11, Redmont Civil Code Act).

23. The Defendant AFFIRMS Fact 23. DHS refunded the initial erroneous $250.00 fine and imposed the corrected $240.00 penalty. The statutory overcharge identified in Fact 18 was therefore corrected.

24. The Defendant AFFIRMS Fact 24 insofar as three $240.00 administrative penalties were imposed. The Defendant states that those penalties represented enforcement of the law against repeated instances of conduct DHS determined constituted Illicit Renting.

25. The Defendant does not contest Fact 25 and states that this allegation concerns the conditions of Defendant Vernicia's property and does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

26. The Defendant does not contest Fact 26 and states that the allegation does not, standing alone, establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

27. The Defendant does not contest Fact 27 and states that the allegation does not, standing alone, establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

28. The Defendant DENIES Fact 28 insofar as it alleges or implies that DHS's correction of an administrative penalty established either an automated or legally equivalent refund mechanism for a transferred private lease. DHS's correction of its own governmental penalty was distinct from any rent payment associated with the private lease between the Plaintiff and Defendant Vernicia and does not establish that DHS possessed or was legally responsible for an automated private-lease refund mechanism.

29. The Defendant does not contest Fact 29 and states that the allegation does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

30. The Defendant does not contest Fact 30 and states that the allegation does not independently establish culpability against the Commonwealth.

II. DEFENCES

1. LAWFUL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
The Plaintiff's due-process theory incorrectly assumes that DHS was required to provide a trial or hearing before assessing an administrative penalty. Redmont law expressly defines an “Administrative Violation” as a regulatory breach enforceable by a government entity “through an immediate penalty, without the need for a formal trial,” with the affected person permitted to contest the penalty before a judicial officer after enforcement. (see Part II, § 7(5), Redmont Civil Code Act).

The Code further provides that Administrative Violations may be enforced directly by a government entity and are subject to a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. (see Part II, § 9(5), Redmont Civil Code Act).

Illicit Renting is expressly classified as an Administrative Violation. (see Part VII, § 11, Redmont Civil Code Act).

The Plaintiff therefore had no entitlement to a pre-enforcement formal trial simply because DHS assessed an administrative penalty. The statutory scheme itself contemplates immediate enforcement followed by the opportunity for judicial review.

This is independently confirmed by the Denial of Due Process provision. Although that cause of action generally protects against governmental decisions affecting rights or interests without notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Code expressly provides that the violation does not occur where “there is no statutory requirement to provide notice or an opportunity to be heard for the decision affecting the plaintiff.” (see Part XI, § 6(d), Redmont Civil Code Act).

Moreover, when the Plaintiff challenged the amount of the original $250.00 penalty, DHS refunded that penalty and replaced it with the correct $240.00 amount. This demonstrates that the administrative process remained capable of correction rather than establishing a denial of process.

2.WRONGFUL SEIZURE — LAWFUL STATUTORY POWER
The Plaintiff cannot establish Wrongful Seizure merely by showing that money was deducted from his account. The statutory violation requires property to have been seized “without lawful authority,” and expressly does not occur where the seizure was conducted pursuant to lawful statutory power. (see Part XI, § 4(a), (c), Redmont Civil Code Act).

Part VII § 11 authorizes an administrative monetary remedy of up to two Civil Penalty Units for each instance of Illicit Renting. (see Part VII, § 11, Redmont Civil Code Act). The Civil Code permits administrative violations to be enforced directly by a governmental entity through immediate penalties. (see Part II, § 7(5), § 9(5), Redmont Civil Code Act).

Accordingly, to the extent DHS established the statutory elements of Illicit Renting, assessment of the resulting $240.00 administrative penalties constituted the exercise of lawful statutory enforcement power and falls within the express exception to Wrongful Seizure contained in Part XI § 4(c).

The Commonwealth acknowledges that the initial $250.00 assessment exceeded the statutory maximum by $10.00. That assessment, however, was reversed in full and replaced with a $240.00 penalty. The Commonwealth therefore retained no money attributable to the original overassessment.

3. WRONGFUL EVICTION — THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT RETALIATORILY EVICT THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff attempts to attribute Defendant Vernicia's alleged motives to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth denies liability on that basis.

Wrongful Eviction encompasses eviction without reasonable notice, eviction without a refund where one is owed, or eviction in retaliation for the exercise of legal rights. (see Part VII, § 5(a)–(c), Redmont Civil Code Act).

The Commonwealth did not initiate the underlying landlord-tenant dispute because of the Plaintiff's political speech, nor did DHS take enforcement action in retaliation for the Plaintiff's exercise of any legal right. DHS's involvement arose from enforcement requests relating to the Plaintiff's continued rental of the property after the landlord had sought his removal.

The Plaintiff therefore cannot establish retaliatory eviction against the Commonwealth merely by alleging retaliatory motives on the part of the separate private Defendant.

4. NO RENT REFUND IS OWED FOR RENT PAID IN AN INSTANCE OF ILLICIT RENTING
The Plaintiff relies on the general private-tenant rule requiring prepaid rent to be refunded upon eviction. (see Part IV, § 21(4), Property Standards Act).

However, Redmont's statutory provisions concerning Illicit Renting specifically provide that restrictions may prevent a tenant from extending a rental after such restrictions take effect and that an unauthorized extension constitutes Illicit Renting. More importantly, the statute expressly provides: “No refunds shall be granted for rent paid in instances of illicit renting.” (see § 7(1), (3), Criminal Terminology Act).

Accordingly, where the Plaintiff's renewed rental constituted Illicit Renting, the Plaintiff had no statutory entitlement to recovery of the rent paid for that illicit rental. Because Wrongful Eviction under Part VII § 5(b) requires a failure to provide a refund “where one is owed,” the Commonwealth cannot be liable under § 5(b) for failing to provide a refund that Redmont law expressly states shall not be granted. (see Part VII, § 5(b), Redmont Civil Code Act; see § 7(3), Criminal Terminology Act).

5. THE PLAINTIFF MUST ESTABLISH EACH STATUTORY ELEMENT OF ILLICIT RENTING
The Commonwealth recognizes that Part VII § 11 requires a person to rent a region despite the landlord having “clearly posted restrictions” prohibiting that person from renting the region. (see Part VII, § 11(a), Redmont Civil Code Act).

The Criminal Terminology Act further provides that restrictions must be posted before becoming legally enforceable and specifies that qualifying restrictions are to be posted on a sign or in a clearly marked and publicly readable lectern book at every public entrance. (see § 7(1)–(2), Criminal Terminology Act).

The Commonwealth's legal defense concerning the validity of the Illicit Renting penalties therefore depends upon the evidentiary record concerning the restrictions applicable to 432office-1 and the information upon which DHS acted. The Commonwealth reserves its ability to develop that defense through discovery consistent with the Rules of Court.

6. THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING VERNICIA DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISH COMMONWEALTH LIABILITY
A substantial portion of the Complaint concerns Defendant Vernicia's alleged statements, motivations, Discord communications, decisions as landlord, and treatment of the Plaintiff. Those allegations cannot, merely by their existence, establish that the Commonwealth committed Wrongful Seizure, Denial of Due Process, or Wrongful Eviction.

The Commonwealth's liability must instead be determined by reference to the statutory elements governing its own actions, including whether DHS exercised lawful administrative authority, whether any pre-enforcement procedure was statutorily required, and whether the Commonwealth itself performed an eviction for which a refund was legally owed.

EVIDENCE

The Commonwealth reserves the submission of properly labeled defense exhibits during discovery pursuant to the Court Rules

WITNESSES

None identified at this time.

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 28th day of August, 2026

 

[ameslap]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISCOURT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Slime_Mario
Plaintiff
v.

Vernicia
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. Affirm
2. Affirm
3. Affirm
4. Affirm in Part, Deny in Part. The Defendant agrees that the Plaintiff disagreed with their position on /find. The Defendant denies that this was the reason for the eviction.
5. Affirm in Part, Deny in Part. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff can repeatedly escape eviction by re-taking a new lease.
6. Affirm in Part, Deny in Part. The Defendant does not contend that the initial eviction arose from any of the items listed in the fact. The Defendant denies that a private landlord is required to establish one of those grounds before deciding to evict someone.
7. Affirm in Part, Deny in Part. The Defendant denies the Plaintiff's interpretation that their re-renting stunt allows them to circumvent eviction.
8. Affirm in Part, Deny in Part. The Defendant admits to making these claims, but denies that it did not alter in-game lease rights.
9. Affirm
10. Affirm
11. Affirm
12. Affirm
13. Deny. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff's unilateral inspection conclusively means that no applicable restriction or notice ever existed.
14. Deny. The Plaintiff themselves identify a public communication in which Vernicia announced that the Plaintiff was prohibited from renting in Lil Rossiya.
15. Affirm in Part, Deny in Part. The Defendant denies the Plaintiff's interpretation that their re-renting stunt allows them to circumvent eviction.
16. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
17. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
18. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
19. Affirm in Part, Neither Affirm Nor Deny in Part. The Defendant cannot affirm that the Plaintiff had personal knowledge of something.
20. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
21. Affirm in Part, Deny in Part. The Defendant denies the Plaintiff's belief that he remained authorized to rent the property after being told otherwise.
22. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
23. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
24. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
25. Deny. The Defendant denies that a lectern is the exclusive way to place a restriction.
26. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
27. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
28. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
29. Neither Affirm Nor Deny. This is an action taken by the DHS, not Vernicia.
30. Deny. There is no evidence of this.

II. DEFENCES​

Claim 1​

Not applicable; this claim is against the Commonwealth, not Vernicia.

Claim 2​

Plaintiff has not established that Vernicia evicted him in retaliation for exercising a legal right. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant disagreed politically before the termination does not itself establish that the political disagreement caused the termination.

In actuality, the Plaintiff's evidence has shown that Vernicia and the Plaintiff has had a toxic relationship. The Plaintiff has this evidence submitted, but is instead asking the Court to infer that the actual motive of the eviction was political speech.

The Plaintiff is not liable under Section 5(b). The Plaintiff established that DHS controlled the repayment mechanism at the time of eviction and alleges that DHS carried out those evictions.

The Property Standards Act provides that if the Government evicts a tenant, it must refund the prepaid rent. The Plaintiff cannot establish Vernicia's liability for the eviction refund, and also alleges that the DHS controlled the process.

Claim 3​

Not applicable; this claim is against the Commonwealth, not Vernicia.

Claim 4​

The Plaintiff has admitted to not having any record of the quantity of experience allegedly lost. Consequential damages must be proven on the balance of probabilities, and the RCCA requires the Court to deny an award where proof is not there.

Claim 5​

Vernicia attempted to terminate a private rental relationship, told the Plaintiff he could no longer rent the office, and sought Government assistance after the Plaintiff repeatedly circumvented those attempts. The Plaintiff has not established the wilfull, dishonest, oppreseive, reckliss, or outrageous conduct necessary for punitive damages.

Plaintiff's Own Conduct​

Plaintiff admits that he repeatedly terminated and immediately re-rented 432office-1 in order to reset the scheduled eviction.

After Vernicia expressly informed Plaintiff that further rentals were prohibited, Plaintiff nevertheless continued doing so and even rented the office again after DHS had removed him.

Those intentional acts are relevant to causation, mitigation, and the reasonableness of any damages Plaintiff seeks.

Failure to Establish Retaliatory Motive​

The chronological proximity between political disagreement and an eviction does not establish that Vernicia acted because Plaintiff exercised a legal right.

Plaintiff must prove retaliation, not merely disagreement followed by an adverse decision.

III. EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES​

None.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERSUIT
Vernicia
Counter-Plaintiff
v.

Slime_Mario
Counter-Defendant

FACTS​

1. Vernicia was the landlord of 432office-1 inside of Lil Rossiya.
2. Counter-Defendant Slime_Mario rented 432office-1.
3. Vernicia attempted to evict the Counter-Defendant.
4. The Counter-Defendant was aware of the eviction attempt.
5. The Counter-Defendant admits that on August 12, he terminated and immediately re-rented 432office-1 specifically to reset the pending eviction.
6. Vernicia informed the Counter-Defendant that attempts to bypass eviction and ban from 432office-1 would result in legal action.
7. Despite having notice that Vernicia did not authorize his continued rental, the Counter-Defendant terminated and re-rented 432office-1.
8. The Plaintiff has admitted to doing the termination and re-renting on August 12, August 14, and August 16.
9. The Counter-Defendant's repeated conduct prevented or delayed Vernicia from regaining control over 432office-1.
10. During this same period, Vernicia had a prospective replacement for the office.
11. On August 13, unalign specifically expressed an interest in renting 432office-1 saying "ill rent it ngl"

Claims for Relief​

Claim 1 - Nuisance​

The RCCA Part VII Section 6 states that a person commits nuisance where they cause substantial and unreasonable interference with another's use and enjoyment of property, and the interference would be offensive to a reasonable person.

The Counter-Defendant had knowledge that Vernicia wanted to evict him and did not consent to a continuous renewal. Rathering than letting the eviction happen, the Counter-Defendant sought to abuse the system to defeat and reset the eviction. This was after being told that any further rentals were not allowed.

The Counter-Defendant's repeated conduct interfered with Vernicia's ability to control, manage, and rent her property. This repeated, deliberate interference would be offensive and unreasonable to a landlord in Vernicia's position.

Claim 2 - Trespass​

The RCCA Part VII Section 3 prohibits entering or remaining on land in another's possession without consent or legal privilege.

Vernicia communicated that she no longer consented to the Counter-Defendant's continued rental of 432 office-1. The Counter-Defendant knew this and decided to repeatedly re-rent and occupy 432office-1.

Claim 3 - Tortious Interference with Business Relations​

The RCCA Part X Section 3 prohibits intentional interference with prospective business dealings or economic relationships where the interference is accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose and causes economic harm.

Vernicia operated 432office-1 as a rental property and intended to make the office available to a replacement following the eviction of the Counter-Defendant. There was even an identifiable prospective replacement, unalign, who specifically expressed an intention to rent 432office-1.

The Counter-Defendant knew that Vernicia did not want them to continue to rent the property.

Despite this, the Counter-Defendant repeatedly terminated and reacquired the property through the automated rental system to defeat Vernicia's termination. By doing so, the Counter-Defendant prevented Vernicia from making 432office-1 available to her prospective renter.

Plaintiff's interference was undertaken for an improper purpose because Plaintiff was knowingly using the automated rental process to frustrate Vernicia's decision to evict them.

Plaintiff's interference caused Vernicia economic harm by preventing her from renting the office to a prospective tenant who had shown intent to begin renting the office.

RELIEF​

The Counter-Plaintiff requests the following relief:

1. Compensatory Damages equal to 50 Civil Penalty Units for the claim of Nuisance.
2. Compensatory Damages equal to $5,000 for the claim of Trespass.
3. Compensatory Damages equal to $5,000 for the claim of Tortious Interference with Business Relations.
4. Punitive Damages in the amount the Court deems warranted due to the Counter-Defendant's intentional and repeated conduct.
5. Legal Fees.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: CP-001

 

[Muggy21]

The Court notes a counterclaim filed by Vernicia against Slime_Mario.


Discovery on all actions is open and shall be open until 9/3/26 at 9pm EDT.

 

[Slime_Mario]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant Department of Homeland Security to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. The complete contents of DHS Ticket 38152, including the original complaint or report that opened it, all internal notes, and the identity and rank of the DHS officer(s) who assessed the three "Illicit Renting" penalties.

2. Any record of an inspection of 432office-1 made by DHS in connection with Ticket 38152, including any /inspect log of the lectern, screenshots, or officer notes.

 

[Slime_Mario]

Your Honour,

Vernicia's objection raises three points. None of them supports denying the Motion.

First, screenshots cannot show when a book was edited. While I expect the neutral screenshots to simply match mine, if they do not, then using the /inspect command would show exactly when the book was last edited. This timing can be checked against the time of the eviction. Redmont law already requires a government employee to verify a posted restriction with /inspect in Criminal Code Act Part VIII Section 1(a)(i), for exactly this reason.

Second, I never claimed Vernicia intends to alter anything. But without an order preserving it, that could change at any moment, and there would be no way to prove it ever changed.

Third, the objection is right that "for the duration of this case" is broader than it needs to be. I agree to narrow the no-edit order to only covering only the lecterns/signs at issue, and only until the inspection is completed and filed.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff renews the Motion as narrowed above and asks the Court to order the inspection without further delay.

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

 

[Matthew100x]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant Department of Homeland Security to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. The complete contents of DHS Ticket 38152, including the original complaint or report that opened it, all internal notes, and the identity and rank of the DHS officer(s) who assessed the three "Illicit Renting" penalties.

2. Any record of an inspection of 432office-1 made by DHS in connection with Ticket 38152, including any /inspect log of the lectern, screenshots, or officer notes.

Your honor,

We're submitting an opposition to the requests.

1. The ticket in reference was created by co-defendant Vernicia, so they are the proper person to be making this request too regarding DHS Ticket 38152. Additionally, internal notes on the ticket itself would've auto deleted at the time that the ticket was closed.

We are willing to stipulate to whoever the arresting officers are and their associated rank at the time of the incident.

2. There was no use of the /inspect command by DHS officers because no warrant was obtained to do that kind of investigation here.