Lawsuit: Pending Vernicia v. Gooseguy1934 [2026] DCR 17

J

Johnes

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Grave Digger
Johnes
Johnes
Attorney
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
25

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vernicia
Plaintiff

v.

Gooseguy1934
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 13th of January, 2026, the Plaintiff was attacked by the Defendant (P-001, P-002) at 00:48 at her plot C995, which the Plaintiff successfully defended herself from. Several minutes later, at 01:16, the Defendant messaged the Plaintiff, telling that he's "fully loaded" but "will spare her" (P-003). Over the span of the next 4 minutes, the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff a total of 3 times without any clear motive. (P-004, P-005) The pile-up of evidence of the murders has caused delays for the Plaintiff, making her unable to continue construction on her plot for at least a day. (P-006)
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Vernicia (Plaintiff, represented by MZLD)
2. Gooseguy1934 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On the 13th of January, 2026, the Defendant attacked the Plaintiff at 00:48, which did not result in a death and the Plaintiff defended herself from successfully. (P-001, P-002)
2. 28 minutes later, at 01:16, the Defendant messaged the Plaintiff the following message: "im back fully loaded but ill spare u" (P-003)
3. Over the span of 4 minutes, the Defendant killed the Plaintiff 3 times on the Plaintiff's plot C995 without any clear motive or reason. The Plaintiff reported these murders to the Department of Homeland Security. (P-004, P-005)
4. The subsequent pile-up of evidence on the construction site has caused a one day delay in the construction for the Plaintiff. (P-006)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. In the case MysticPhunky V. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 26, the Court's opinion states the following: "A murder prosecution belongs under DHS jurisdiction. You may still sue for civil damages based on harm caused through criminal activity." The nature of the crimes committed by the Defendant in our case is very similiar to those committed in the aforementioned case. Furthermore the severity of the crimes committed by the Defendant is worse.
2. The Plaintiff has suffered damages from the delay in construction caused by the murders committed by the Defendant. Due to the Plaintiff being the owner of Mezimoří, the damages are much greater, due to size of the company and the necessity of the construction.
3. The Defendant's murders were without any clear motive or reason; nor were they necessary for his safety, the safety of his property or anyone's else safety.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $15 000 in Punitive Damages for the three murders and to deter any continued unnecessary murders by the Defendant.
2. $15 000 in Compensatory Damages for the delay caused by the pile-up of evidence.
3. 15% of the total damages awarded in legal fees.

1770837325855.png
1770837365210.png
1770837713538.png
1770837767651.png
1770837838436.png
1770837884790.png

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 11th day of February 2026.

1770837984391.png

 

Writ of Summons

@Gooseguy the Goose , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Vernicia v. Gooseguy1934 [2026] DCR 17

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.

 
defendant failed to appear, PD is to be appointed.
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,
In SCR 20 [2025], the SCR ruled

Text logs as a form of evidence are naturally suspect and must be corroborated by independent evidence.
Click to expand...

Following this precedent, in DCR 5 [2026], the Defense requested evidence that was not independently corroborated to be struck, and the DCR granted this action.

Similarly, P-003 is not corroborated by any independent evidence, and P-005 is only partially corroborated by P-004.



Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The above objection explains why such evidence is improper. The DCR precedent obliges the court to be consistent with its past actions, and therefore, the Defense requests that:

1. P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.
2. All references to P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,
In SCR 20 [2025], the SCR ruled


Following this precedent, in DCR 5 [2026], the Defense requested evidence that was not independently corroborated to be struck, and the DCR granted this action.

Similarly, P-003 is not corroborated by any independent evidence, and P-005 is only partially corroborated by P-004.



Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The above objection explains why such evidence is improper. The DCR precedent obliges the court to be consistent with its past actions, and therefore, the Defense requests that:

1. P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.
2. All references to P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.

Click to expand...

@dearev

Your Honour, in DCR 5 [2026], the Court also granted the request to postpone the deadline for an answer.
Similarly, the Defense requests a postponement of the deadline for an answer.

The Defense cannot prepare an answer to facts/evidence that may be struck from the record; therefore, whatever time the Defense has in the duration of a pending ruling on our Objection and Motion in #6 is useless in preparing an answer.

We respectfully request that the Court pause the deadline for filing an answer and, following a ruling on the Objection and Motion in #6, resume the deadline with whatever time remained at the moment those filings were submitted.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,
In SCR 20 [2025], the SCR ruled


Following this precedent, in DCR 5 [2026], the Defense requested evidence that was not independently corroborated to be struck, and the DCR granted this action.

Similarly, P-003 is not corroborated by any independent evidence, and P-005 is only partially corroborated by P-004.



Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The above objection explains why such evidence is improper. The DCR precedent obliges the court to be consistent with its past actions, and therefore, the Defense requests that:

1. P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.
2. All references to P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.

Click to expand...

Response


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honour,
Staff have reviewed the aforementioned evidence and have verified it.

1771154998661.png

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honour,
In SCR 20 [2025], the SCR ruled


Following this precedent, in DCR 5 [2026], the Defense requested evidence that was not independently corroborated to be struck, and the DCR granted this action.

Similarly, P-003 is not corroborated by any independent evidence, and P-005 is only partially corroborated by P-004.



Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The above objection explains why such evidence is improper. The DCR precedent obliges the court to be consistent with its past actions, and therefore, the Defense requests that:

1. P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.
2. All references to P-003 and P-005 be struck from the record.

Click to expand...

Your Honour, this can be disregarded along with #7.
 
Temporarily taking over this case for the next 48-72hrs
 
Please spare me 6 hours for the next thing please let me read into it quickly
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Vernicia
Plaintiff


v.


Gooseguy1934
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​


  1. The Defense admits that the defendant killed the plaintiff in the game and that this act could be seen as a criminal offense like Murder under the Criminal Code. However, the Defense contests the complaint because Murder is a criminal charge that only the State can bring, not a private person.
  2. The Defense acknowledges that the mentioned message was sent, but it does not matter legally because private citizens cannot sue for violations of the criminal code. Only the DOJ can file those claims.
  3. The Defense agrees that multiple deaths occurred, but the complaint is not a valid civil lawsuit. The plaintiff has not shown any civil wrong that allows them to sue.
  4. The Defense disputes any claims related to construction delays or damages because the complaint only addresses criminal acts, which cannot be resolved through civil court filings.
  5. Any other allegations not addressed here are denied.


II. DEFENSES​


  1. Crimes like Murder, Assault, Attempted Murder, and others are criminal offenses that private citizens cannot sue for. Only the State can prosecute these cases.
  2. The plaintiff has not identified any real civil harm or cause of action, making the filing improper.
  3. No actual civil damages have been proven. The entire complaint is based on criminal accusations, not civil injury.
  4. The plaintiff does not have standing because they cannot sue someone for a criminal offense.


By making this submission, The Defence understands the penalties of lying in court and that false statements can be punished as perjury.

DATED: This 15 day of February 2026

 
Babysoga4real said:

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Vernicia
Plaintiff


v.


Gooseguy1934
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​


  1. The Defense admits that the defendant killed the plaintiff in the game and that this act could be seen as a criminal offense like Murder under the Criminal Code. However, the Defense contests the complaint because Murder is a criminal charge that only the State can bring, not a private person.
  2. The Defense acknowledges that the mentioned message was sent, but it does not matter legally because private citizens cannot sue for violations of the criminal code. Only the DOJ can file those claims.
  3. The Defense agrees that multiple deaths occurred, but the complaint is not a valid civil lawsuit. The plaintiff has not shown any civil wrong that allows them to sue.
  4. The Defense disputes any claims related to construction delays or damages because the complaint only addresses criminal acts, which cannot be resolved through civil court filings.
  5. Any other allegations not addressed here are denied.


II. DEFENSES​


  1. Crimes like Murder, Assault, Attempted Murder, and others are criminal offenses that private citizens cannot sue for. Only the State can prosecute these cases.
  2. The plaintiff has not identified any real civil harm or cause of action, making the filing improper.
  3. No actual civil damages have been proven. The entire complaint is based on criminal accusations, not civil injury.
  4. The plaintiff does not have standing because they cannot sue someone for a criminal offense.


By making this submission, The Defence understands the penalties of lying in court and that false statements can be punished as perjury.

DATED: This 15 day of February 2026

Click to expand...
we shall now enter discovery lasting 5 days
discovery lasts until feb 20th 2026 @ 16:51 EST
 
We agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top