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

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Johnes

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Health Department
Grave Digger
Johnes
Johnes
Attorney
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
34

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
 
dearev said:
we shall now enter discovery lasting 5 days
discovery lasts until feb 20th 2026 @ 16:51 EST
Click to expand...
Plaintiff is open to ending discovery sooner
 
We agree
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,
The Defendant has killed the Plaintiff multiple times without any reasonable intent or motive on her plot C995. This has caused considerable construction delays due to the pile-up of the evidence on the construction site (P-006) and thus has caused damages to her and her business.

Thus we ask for Compensatory Damages to compensate the Plaintiff for her injury caused from the construction delays and we ask for Punitive Damages to deter any further motiveless murders.

I. Standing
The Criminal Code Act's Part 1 Section 6(1) states the following:

(1) Civil Damages
(a) In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed.
(b) Conviction is not a requirement for a crime to be regarded as a fact in a civil lawsuit; the default standard of proof for civil cases shall be used.
(c) Law regarding legal damages shall also apply to damages caused by crimes.
Click to expand...
This allows the Plaintiff to sue for damages based on criminal acts done to her. This is followed by precedent in the case MysticPhunky V. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 26, where the Court opinion upholds this fact.

Furthermore, in the case lucaaasserole v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 45, the opinion states:
It is established precedent that relief for damages from criminal acts may be pursued in a civil action in the courts. [...]
Click to expand...
Which allows for civilians to pursue civil action for criminal acts, which have caused them damages.

The aforementioned points show that citizens are entitled to sue for criminal acts, if they caused damages to them and they may pursue punitive damages that deter from acts themself.

II. Damages
The Plaintiff, Vernicia, is an owner of a large company (Mezimoří) that hinges on the trouble-free operation of its HQ, C995. The Defendant's killings on a construction site, and the ensuing delays in construction, caused considerable damages to the Plaintiff.

As for Punitive Damages, in the aforementioned case [2025] FCR 26 the Court states the following:
Murder is clearly an outrageous act, and the law provides for punitive damages to punish and deter conduct that goes beyond ordinary wrongdoing. Given the severity of murder, this Court finds it justified to grant the full amount of punitive damages requested by the Plaintiff.
Click to expand...
This allows for Plaintiffs to be awarded damages from the act of murder alone. This is upheld by Pepecuu v. Vortexx_x [2025] DCR 8:
As for the Defendants outrageous disregard of law, I do agree. The defendant is seen killing the plaintiff and attempting to do so multiple other times while only being thwarted by the kill limit.
Click to expand...
and the aforementioned [2025] DCR 45:
Since MysticPhunky also established that “[m]urder is clearly an outrageous act,” Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages.
Click to expand...
These three cases show that one may sue for murder, if it caused civil damages and if it's outrageous. Our case satisfies both prerequisites and warrants appropriate relief.

We respectfully ask the Court to grant us the full relief based on the arguments, precedent, evidence and laws stated above.

 
Johnes said:

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,
The Defendant has killed the Plaintiff multiple times without any reasonable intent or motive on her plot C995. This has caused considerable construction delays due to the pile-up of the evidence on the construction site (P-006) and thus has caused damages to her and her business.

Thus we ask for Compensatory Damages to compensate the Plaintiff for her injury caused from the construction delays and we ask for Punitive Damages to deter any further motiveless murders.

I. Standing
The Criminal Code Act's Part 1 Section 6(1) states the following:

This allows the Plaintiff to sue for damages based on criminal acts done to her. This is followed by precedent in the case MysticPhunky V. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 26, where the Court opinion upholds this fact.

Furthermore, in the case lucaaasserole v. FearlessNacktmul [2025] DCR 45, the opinion states:

Which allows for civilians to pursue civil action for criminal acts, which have caused them damages.

The aforementioned points show that citizens are entitled to sue for criminal acts, if they caused damages to them and they may pursue punitive damages that deter from acts themself.

II. Damages
The Plaintiff, Vernicia, is an owner of a large company (Mezimoří) that hinges on the trouble-free operation of its HQ, C995. The Defendant's killings on a construction site, and the ensuing delays in construction, caused considerable damages to the Plaintiff.

As for Punitive Damages, in the aforementioned case [2025] FCR 26 the Court states the following:

This allows for Plaintiffs to be awarded damages from the act of murder alone. This is upheld by Pepecuu v. Vortexx_x [2025] DCR 8:

and the aforementioned [2025] DCR 45:

These three cases show that one may sue for murder, if it caused civil damages and if it's outrageous. Our case satisfies both prerequisites and warrants appropriate relief.

We respectfully ask the Court to grant us the full relief based on the arguments, precedent, evidence and laws stated above.

Click to expand...
defense may now present theirs within 72 hours.
 

Opening Statement


OPENING STATEMENT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has made a claim based almost entirely on unproven statements. In civil court, it is not enough to just say something and hope the Court accepts it. The Plaintiff must back their claims with evidence. Here, they have provided none. First, the Plaintiff claims they own a company called Mezimoří. However, Mezimoří is not registered with the Department of Commerce. The Plaintiff has submitted no business registration, no ownership documents, no filings, and no proof that the company even exists as a legal entity within the Commonwealth. Their entire damages claim rests on the existence of a company they have not proven is real. Second, the Plaintiff claims that Plot C995 is the headquarters of this unregistered company. They submitted no deed, no corporate record linking the plot to any business, and no proof that the plot is being used—or is planned to be used—as a headquarters. Third, the Plaintiff claims the plot was an active construction site. While permits are not required, evidence is. They offered no screenshots, logs, materials, workers, timeline, or any proof that construction was taking place. Fourth, they state there were construction delays. However, they provided no timeline, no schedule, no projected completion date, and no evidence of any real delay. Finally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to award considerable damages. Yet they submitted no financial records, no valuation of the alleged company, no loss statements, no documentation of harm, and no estimates of damages based on verifiable evidence. Your Honour, the Plaintiff is asking this Court to award damages based on: - an unregistered company, - an unproven headquarters, - unproven construction, - unproven delays, and - unproven harm. Civil liability cannot rely on assumptions, guesses, or unsupported claims. The Plaintiff has not met the burden of proof for any essential part of their case. For these reasons, the defense will demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s claims cannot stand, and the Court must dismiss the case.


Respectfully submitted,
PD Soga Sogaton

 
due to a lack of witnesses being listed we will be moving onto closing statements

plaintiff may present theirs within 72 hours.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour,
It is a fact that the Defendant killed the Plaintiff on her property C995 multiple times (P-004, P-005) and that the murders occurred while she was building (P-005). The pile-up of the evidence resulting from the murders caused a construction delay of at least a day (P-006).

I. Delay in Construction
In P-004, the following is said:

Plaintiff: i now cannot build duo to all evidence
[...]
Plaintiff: i need finish it today O,O
Click to expand...
This is directly corroborated by P-006, where the Plaintiff asks the Department of Homeland Security to clear the bodies. This clearly shows a large delay (the difference between the first and last message is more than 24 hours). This is enough to warrant damages due to the large delay in construction.

II. Punitive Damages
In [2025] FCR 26 the Court awarded the Plaintiff Punitive Damages at $5 000 for one count of murder. In our case, we have shown that the murders committed by the Defendant were: a) outrageous in nature, lacking in motive, and b) unprompted, "out of the blue", thus we ask for $15 000 for the three counts of murder and his conduct before the murders, mainly his threats and attempted murder (P-001, P-002, P-003).

Part III of the Redmont Civil Code Act defines Punitive Damages as the following:
3. Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.
Click to expand...
The Defendant's conduct satisfied this definition, furthermore;
(2) Award:
(b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:
(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss;
(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person;
(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur;
(iv) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;
(v) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences; or
(vi) The conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone.
Click to expand...
The Defendant knew that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience the Plaintiff and the Defendant's murder spree demonstrates this. The Defendant's (mis)conduct also satisfied parts iii and iv.

Due to the evidence and the points stated above, we respectfully ask the Court to grant us the full sum of Punitive Damages.

III. Compensatory Damages
In my opening statement, I stated that Mezimoří was a company, which I mostly retract as a statement of fact, it nonetheless refers to the number of companies bearing the Mezimoří name (Mezimoří Union Jednota, Mezimoří Union Bancorporation) and the divisions of Mezimoří.

Furthermore, C995 is a busy trading hub for the server and the main source of income for the Plaintiff and any delays in the operation of the plot cause considerable damages to the Plaintiff, thus we ask for $15 000 for the damages incurred.

We respectfully ask the Court to grant us the full relief we request and grant MZLD legal fees at a rate of 15%.

 
Your Honour,
the Parties have settled and we ask that the Court enforces the deal to the best of its ability:
1. Defendant pays the Plaintiff $15 000; and
2. No Legal Fees are to be applied.

1771634995311.png
 
Johnes said:
Your Honour,
the Parties have settled and we ask that the Court enforces the deal to the best of its ability:
1. Defendant pays the Plaintiff $15 000; and
2. No Legal Fees are to be applied.

View attachment 74857
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
As the defendant has agreed therefore the Defense also agrees.
 
Your Honour,
I would like to inform the Court that the Defendant paid the agreed to amount in the Settlement Offer and the matter is considered resolved.
 
Johnes said:
Your Honour,
I would like to inform the Court that the Defendant paid the agreed to amount in the Settlement Offer and the matter is considered resolved.
Click to expand...
in that case i will be dismissing this case as a settlement has been reached and fulfilled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top