ToadKing
Illegal Lawyer
Representative
Public Defender
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
Statesman
Order of Redmont
ToadKing__
Representative
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2025
- Messages
- 494
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
ToadKing
Plaintiff
v.
Yeah_Jaron
Wahhfff
Defendants
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. ToadKing2. Yeah_Jaron
3. Wahhfff
II. FACTS
1. On 15 March 2026, at approximately 22:00 UTC, the Plaintiff, ToadKing, was present near Aventura Spawn by the lake.2. The Plaintiff is notably smaller than the average player, significantly below standard player height. (P-001, P-006)
3. Defendants Yeah_Jaron and Wahhfff were present at the same location and were engaging in fishing before the Plaintiff's arrival.
4. The Plaintiff, finding it a pleasant evening, sat nearby to watch the Defendants fish.
5. The Plaintiff posed no threat and engaged in no provocative conduct.
6. At approximately 22:10 UTC, the Defendants then jointly and deliberately approached the Plaintiff and pointed Miniguns directly at him. This conduct was sustained for approximately one minute. (P-001)
7. The Minigun is a large, high-capacity weapon. The weapon itself is substantially larger than the Plaintiff. (P-001, P-002)
8. The Defendants' weapons were directed at or near the Plaintiff, at extremely close range. (P-001)
9. The Minigun is chambered in 5.56 NATO. Under Section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Firearms Licensing Act, any firearm chambered in 5.56 NATO is classified as a Restricted Firearm. (P-003)
10. At the time of the incident, Yeah_Jaron held only a Drivers licence and no firearms licence of any kind. (P-004)
11. At the time of the incident, Wahhfff held only a Drivers licence and no firearms licence of any kind. (P-005)
12. Neither Defendant had any lawful authority to possess, handle, or brandish the Miniguns at any point during this incident.
13. The entire incident occurred in public, in full view of any player within 30 blocks of Aventura Spawn.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Assault
The Criminal Code Act (CCA), Part IV, Section 1 provides:The statutory language is unambiguous. Pointing a weapon at a player is the Act's sole primary example of placing that player in a position of danger. Each Defendant pointed a Minigun at the Plaintiff for approximately one minute. This offence is individually and plainly established against each Defendant.
The Plaintiff's smaller stature is a relevant circumstance going to the gravity of the harm. The Minigun is physically larger than the Plaintiff himself. When pointed at the Plaintiff at close range, the weapons were directed at or near his head or upper body. The Plaintiff was seated, smaller than both Defendants, and surrounded by two individuals directing oversized restricted firearms at him simultaneously. The Plaintiff was therefore placed in a position of danger before any and all witnesses, including poor Larry the Fisher, who happened to be present.
The Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) Part II, Section 6(1)(b) confirms that no criminal conviction is required:
The Plaintiff establishes this offence on the balance of probabilities against both Defendants.
2. Disturbing the Peace
The CCA, Part V, Section 1 provides:The Defendants' conduct satisfies each element of this offence.
The conduct was disorderly - two individuals approaching a seated, smaller player and directing large, restricted firearms at them for approximately one minute in a public space is not ordinary behaviour. It was targeted, sustained, coordinated, and directed at a specific individual.
The conduct caused the Plaintiff alarm and distress. As previously noted, the Miniguns pointed at him were weapons substantially larger than himself, and were thrust in his face at considerable close range. He was surrounded by two individuals acting in conjunction, both with these large weapons. Any reasonable person in the Plaintiff's position would experience alarm and distress. The public setting amplifies this: the conduct took place in a setting where any player within distance could observe it, meaning the Plaintiff was subjected to this targeting openly to anyone present at Aventura Spawn.
3. Unauthorised Firearms Possession
The CCA, Part IV, Section 9 provides:Yeah_Jaron held no firearms licence at the time of the incident. (P-002) Wahhfff held no firearms licence at the time of the incident. (P-003) Each possessed a Minigun without any valid licence. This offence is individually established against each Defendant.
The unlicensed possession is not a peripheral matter, but rather, it is central to the character of the Defendants' conduct. The Plaintiff was placed in a position of danger by individuals who had no lawful right to be in possession of those weapons at all. This was not a simple case of a licensed individual misusing a firearm. Both Defendants operated entirely outside the legal framework governing firearms from the outset.
4. Punitive Damages
The RCCA Part III, Section 3(2)(a) provides:Section 3(2)(b) defines outrageous conduct:
The following are expressly satisfied:
The Defendants deliberately approached the Plaintiff and directed weapons at him. This was not accidental but a coordinated act by two individuals.
Pointing a firearm at a person is self-evidently likely to cause harm or serious distress.
Both Defendants were in unlicensed possession of restricted firearms throughout the incident. They had no lawful right to carry these weapons. Their decision to obtain, carry, and brandish unlicensed restricted firearms in a public space at another player reflects reckless indifference to the law and to the safety of others.
The following features of this case, in combination, establish that the conduct was outrageous within the meaning of Section 3(2)(b):
First, coordination. This was not a single person acting impulsively. Two Defendants approached the Plaintiff together and directed their weapons at him simultaneously and in concert. Coordinated targeting of an individual is deliberate by nature.
Second, actual weapons. In ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82, this Court held that the mere act of stepping on the Plaintiff was not inherently disorderly on its own - the Disturbing the Peace finding in that case rested on verbal conduct. Here, the instruments of the Defendants' conduct were not words, nor physical contact, but firearms - the very instruments that the CCA itself identifies, by name, as being capable of placing a person in a position of danger. If words alone sufficed to establish Disturbing the Peace in [2025] DCR 82, conduct involving actual weapons directed at the Plaintiff from close range represents a qualitative and significant departure upward from that threshold.
Third, unlicensed restricted firearms. Neither Defendant held any firearms licence. The Minigun is classified as a Restricted Firearm under the Firearms Licensing Act. Both Defendants were therefore in breach of the firearms licensing regime from the moment they picked up those weapons. Brandishing unlicensed restricted firearms at a bystander in a public space is a wilful and compounded disregard for the legal framework designed to protect the public from precisely this kind of conduct.
Fourth, the public setting. The conduct took place in full view of any player within 30 blocks of Aventura Spawn. The Defendants chose to direct weapons at the Plaintiff in a location where the impact and visibility of their conduct was maximised.
Fifth, the vulnerability of the Plaintiff. The Defendants directed weapons larger than the Plaintiff himself at him from close range. The size disparity between the Plaintiff and the weapons being wielded against him was stark and plain to see. Beyond size, the Plaintiff has significantly less health than the average player - 4 hearts compared to the standard 10. (P-006) A standard player can sustain considerably more damage before death; the Plaintiff cannot. Given the Plaintiff's reduced health pool, the Defendants could have killed the Plaintiff near-instantly, with no chance for the Plaintiff to escape or call out for help. The position of danger the Defendants created was therefore not merely theoretical - the Plaintiff was, by reason of his reduced health, acutely and measurably more vulnerable to lethal harm from the weapons being pointed at him than any average player would have been. The Defendants' conduct targeted an individual in circumstances that made the position of danger exceptionally acute.
Taken together, these five features - coordination, actual weapons, unlicensed restricted firearms, public setting, and the vulnerability of the Plaintiff - constitute conduct that is wilful, reckless, and reflects a fundamental disregard for the rights and safety of others. A punitive award of $10,000 per Defendant is proportionate to the seriousness and deliberateness of the conduct and serves the deterrent purpose of punitive damages.
5. Nominal Damages
The RCCA Part III, Section 4 provides:Three distinct causes of action have been established against each Defendant on the balance of probabilities. The legal causes of action are made out. Where the Court does not grant punitive damages, nominal damages are warranted in recognition that the Defendants' conduct constituted multiple violations of the Criminal Code Act directed at the Plaintiff in a public setting.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:1. $10,000 Punitive Damages from Yeah_Jaron, pursuant to RCCA Part III, Section 3, for their outrageous conduct.
2. $10,000 Punitive Damages from Wahhfff, pursuant to RCCA Part III, Section 3, for their outrageous conduct.
3. In the alternative, $7,500 Nominal Damages in recognition of the established causes of action.
4. 30% Legal fees as provided under RCCA Part III, Section 7.
5. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
EVIDENCE
Act of Congress Thread 'Firearms Licensing Act'
WITNESSES
1. Yeah_Jaron2. Wahhfff
3. Larry the Fisher (Plaintiff has the right to call NPCs as witnesses, see [2025] FCR 64)
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 March 2026
Last edited:
