Lawsuit: Dismissed VoidChampion v. bernard_matoff, Atrile and Norpie

Status
Not open for further replies.
VoidChampion

VoidChampion

Citizen
VoidChampion
VoidChampion
Armourer
Joined
Sep 30, 2026
Messages
7

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

VoidChampion
Plaintiff

v.

bernard_matoff, Atrile and Norpie
Defendants

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 5 November 2026, I experienced a series of incidents involving the Defendants bernard_matoff, Atrile and Norpie within DemocracyCraft.

These incidents involved bernard_matoff holding a weapon towards me, Atrile repeatedly placing obsidian in front of my claimed shop chests, and Norpie repeatedly obstructing my attempts to break and remove my chests by walking directly in front of me.

The actions of the Defendants significantly disrupted my ability to access and use my claimed shop property. In particular, Atrile's repeated placement of obsidian prevented me from accessing and using my shop chests normally.

Additionally, Norpie repeatedly interfered with my attempts to remove my belongings. The situation eventually became sufficiently disruptive that I decided to leave the original shop location and search for somewhere else to establish my shops.

I possess a recording of the livestream containing footage of these incidents. I intend to submit this recording as evidence in support of my claims.

I am bringing this action to seek appropriate remedies for the alleged intimidation and interference with my property and enjoyment of the game.

I. PARTIES

  1. The Plaintiff is VoidChampion.
  2. The First Defendant is bernard_matoff.
  3. The Second Defendant is Atrile.
  4. The Third Defendant is Norpie.
II. FACTS

A. FIRST DEFENDANT – bernard_matoff

  1. On 5 November 2026, bernard_matoff engaged in behaviour that the Plaintiff considered to be targeted provocation and ragebaiting.
  2. At approximately 15:50 in the video recording, bernard_matoff is shown holding a weapon towards the Plaintiff.
  3. The Plaintiff considered this conduct intimidating and threatening and believes it placed them in a position of danger.
  4. In response, the Plaintiff also held up their own minigun.
  5. The Plaintiff acknowledges their response and requests that the Court consider the complete sequence of events and the conduct of both parties.
  6. The Plaintiff requests that the Court examine whether the First Defendant's conduct constituted Assault under the applicable Commonwealth legislation.
B. SECOND DEFENDANT – Atrile

  1. On 5 November 2026, Atrile repeatedly interfered with the Plaintiff's claimed shop property.
  2. At approximately 03:18 in the video recording, Atrile is shown engaging in obstruction involving the placement of obsidian in front of the Plaintiff's shop chests.
  3. The Plaintiff's shop chests were located within an area claimed by the Plaintiff.
  4. The repeated placement of obsidian prevented the Plaintiff from accessing and using the shop chests normally.
  5. The Plaintiff considers this behaviour deliberate and intended to provoke and frustrate them.
  6. The Plaintiff submits that the repeated obstruction substantially interfered with their ability to use and enjoy their claimed shop property.
C. THIRD DEFENDANT – Norpie

  1. On 5 November 2026, Norpie repeatedly obstructed the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was attempting to break and remove their shop chests.
  2. At approximately 17:40 in the video recording, Norpie is shown walking in front of the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff is attempting to break the chests.
  3. This behaviour repeatedly interrupted the Plaintiff's attempts to remove their belongings.
  4. The Plaintiff considers this conduct deliberate and an unreasonable interference with their ability to remove their claimed property.
D. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INCIDENTS

  1. The Plaintiff experienced significant disruption to their ability to access and use their claimed shop property.
  2. The Plaintiff was repeatedly prevented from accessing their shop chests normally due to the conduct described above.
  3. The Plaintiff eventually decided to leave the original shop location and search for another location to establish their shops.
  4. At approximately 18:16 in the video recording, the Plaintiff leaves the original location and begins searching for a new shop location.
  5. The Plaintiff submits that the incidents resulted in a loss of enjoyment and substantial disruption to their ordinary gameplay activities.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM 1 – ASSAULT

Against bernard_matoff:

  1. The Plaintiff relies upon the applicable Assault provisions of the Criminal Code Act, including Part IV, Section 1(b).
  2. The Plaintiff alleges that bernard_matoff held a weapon towards them in circumstances that placed them in a position of danger.
  3. The Plaintiff acknowledges that they also held up their minigun in response.
  4. The Plaintiff requests that the Court consider the complete incident and determine whether the First Defendant's conduct constituted Assault.
  5. The Plaintiff seeks any civil remedies available under Commonwealth law arising from any proven unlawful conduct.
CLAIM 2 – NUISANCE

Against Atrile:

  1. The Plaintiff relies upon Part VII, Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
  2. The Plaintiff alleges that Atrile repeatedly placed obsidian in front of the Plaintiff's claimed shop chests.
  3. This conduct prevented the Plaintiff from accessing and using their shop chests normally.
  4. The Plaintiff submits that this constituted substantial and unreasonable interference with their use and enjoyment of their claimed shop property.
  5. The Plaintiff requests that the Court determine whether this conduct satisfies the legal requirements for nuisance.
CLAIM 3 – NUISANCE

Against Norpie:

  1. The Plaintiff also relies upon Part VII, Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
  2. The Plaintiff alleges that Norpie repeatedly obstructed their attempts to break and remove their claimed shop chests.
  3. The Plaintiff submits that this conduct substantially interfered with their ability to access and remove their property.
  4. The Plaintiff requests that the Court determine whether this conduct satisfies the legal requirements for nuisance.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

  1. Examine the conduct of each Defendant separately.
  2. Determine whether bernard_matoff committed Assault under the applicable Commonwealth legislation.
  3. Determine whether Atrile and Norpie committed Nuisance under the Redmont Civil Code Act.
  4. Award appropriate compensation for any legally recognised and demonstrable losses.
  5. Consider appropriate civil penalties for any proven violations.
  6. Consider an appropriate order preventing further deliberate interference with the Plaintiff's claimed shop property and access to their belongings.
  7. Grant any additional relief that the Court considers appropriate under Commonwealth law.
V. EVIDENCE

EXHIBIT P-001 – VIDEO RECORDING

YouTube recording:

The Plaintiff submits this recording as evidence of the incidents described in this complaint.

Relevant timestamps:

  1. 03:18 – Atrile: Obsidian placed in front of the Plaintiff's shop chests, obstructing access.
  2. 15:50 – bernard_matoff: Weapon held towards the Plaintiff.
  3. 17:40 – Norpie: Repeated obstruction while the Plaintiff attempts to break and remove their chests.
  4. 18:16 – VoidChampion: Leaves the original shop location and begins searching for a new shop location.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court consider the surrounding footage as well as the timestamps identified above to understand the full context of each incident.

VI. WITNESSES

  1. VoidChampion – Plaintiff and direct participant in the incidents.
No additional independent witnesses have presently been identified.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to identify additional witnesses and submit further supporting evidence in accordance with the Court Rules.

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 8th day of November 2026.

 
CORRECTION TO SECTION II – FACTS

B. SECOND DEFENDANT – Atrile

  1. On 5 November 2026, Atrile repeatedly interfered with the Plaintiff's shop chests, which were claimed by the Plaintiff and located in the Everwild.
  2. At approximately 03:18 in the video recording, Atrile is shown placing obsidian in front of the Plaintiff's claimed shop chests.
  3. The repeated placement of obsidian obstructed the Plaintiff's ability to access and use their shop chests.
  4. The Plaintiff considers this behaviour deliberate and intended to provoke and frustrate them.
  5. The Plaintiff submits that this conduct interfered with their ability to use their claimed shop chests and conduct their shop activities.
C. THIRD DEFENDANT – Norpie

  1. On 5 November 2026, Norpie repeatedly obstructed the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was attempting to break and remove their claimed shop chests located in the Everwild.
  2. At approximately 17:40 in the video recording, Norpie is shown walking in front of the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff is attempting to break the chests.
  3. This behaviour repeatedly interrupted the Plaintiff's attempts to remove their belongings.
D. CONSEQUENCES

  1. The Plaintiff experienced significant disruption to their ability to access and use their claimed shop chests in the Everwild.
  2. The Plaintiff eventually decided to leave the original shop location and search for another location for their shops.
 
I have changed my mind, I will preside over this case.

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER

The Court has seen multiple issues with this petition. For one, the Plaintiff is not legally qualified. This does not have to be an issue, but the Complaint appears to have been generated by Artificial Intelligence, breaks multiple court rules, and the Plaintiff is obviously ignorant about the Redmont legal system. As such, the Court gives Plaintiff 48 hours to find qualified legal counsel to properly file their case. If this order is not fulfilled by that time, this case shall be dismissed.

So Ordered.

 

Case Filing

I hereby dismiss this case and wish no longer to peruse this action.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top