Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont and Vernicia

[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.