Lawsuit: Pending zPokebr_ v. mvchrelle

[Poker]

​

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


zPokebr_
Plaintiff

v.

mvchrelle
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Comes now the Plaintiff, attorney zPokebr_, formally petitions this Honorable Court for civil tort damages against Defendant mvchrelle

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 22/07, i was restocking my shop when, suddenly, mvchrelle entered on my store with a weapon, killing a client and almost killing me and another customer (daily murder limit prevented our deaths).

By doing this, mvchrelle created fear among my customers and disrupted my shop operations. Customers have every reason to avoid returning to my business. The Defendant's actions were intentional entirely illegitimate. There was no justification for entering my store and attacking players who were peacefully trading.

I. PARTIES
1. zPokebr_ (Plaintiff)
2. mvchrelle (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On 22/07, around 22:00 UMG -3, the Defendant entered C644, the plaintiff's plot and shop.
2. C644 is only used for commercial purposes.
3. After entering on the store, the Defendant killed badbeatjackpot (P-001, P-002)
4. Furthermore, the Defendant tried to kill the Plaintiff, but failed due to daily murder limit. (P-003)
5. Furthermore, the Defendant tried to kill Tameemkh, but failed. (P-004)
6. Plaintiff warned the Defendant to stop. (P-005, P-006)
7. The defendant ignored the warning and tried to kill the plaintiff again (P-007)
8. Almost 3 minutes after the described facts, Plaintiff logged out from the game.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Nuisance
Redmont Civil Code Act, Part VII, Section 6:

A person commits a violation if the person:

(a) causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with another's use and enjoyment of their property; and
(b) the interference would be offensive to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position.
This violation shall not occur where:
(c) the plaintiff consented to the interference; or
(d) the interference results from the ordinary and reasonable use of the defendant’s own property.
Relevant Law:

1.1 The Defendant caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of C644

As the owner of a commercial shop, the Plaintiff reasonably expects customers to be able to enter, browse, and conduct business in a safe environment. The Defendant intentionally entered the premises and carried out a violent attack, killing one customer and attempting (P-001, P-002) to kill two others, including the Plaintiff (P-003, P-004).

Such conduct interfered with the Plaintiff's lawful use of the property as a place of commerce, as well as its enjoyment of the property. Rather than serving the customer, the Plaintiff was forced to deal with the attack and it's consequences.

Additionally, even after the Plaintiff repeatedly demanded that the Defendant cease the attacks, the Defendant continued the violent conduct without hesitation (P-005, P-006, P-007). This outrageous and deliberate disregard for the Plaintiff's pleas demonstrates that the Defendant neither care or think about the plaintiff's rights or enjoyment of the game.

After the repeated attack, plaintiff logged out of the game.

1.2 The interference is offensive to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position

A reasonable shop owner does not expect, nor should they be made to tolerate, an armed intruder killing patrons inside their place of business.

The unreasonableness of the Defendant's conduct is further evidenced by the Plaintiff's contemporaneous demand that the Defendant cease (P-005, P-006). Instead, the Defendant escalated, attempting to kill the Plaintiff.

1.3 No statutory exception applies

No consent, lawful authority, or any privilege on the Defendant's part allowed her to enter C644 and engage in violence.

2. Tortious Interference with Business Relations
Redmont Civil Code Act, Part X, Section 3

A person commits a violation if the person:

(a) intentionally interferes with the plaintiff's prospective business dealings or economic relationships; and
(b) the interference is accomplished through improper means or for improper purposes; and
(c) the interference causes economic harm to the plaintiff.

2.1 Defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff’s prospective economics relationships

The Plaintiff operates a commercial shop for the purpose of conducting trades. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was actively restocking and interacting with customers when the Defendant entered the premises armed with a weapon.

Rather than engaging in any legitimate commercial activity, the Defendant killed one customer (P-001, P-002) and attempted to kill the Plaintiff (P-003) and another customer (P-004) inside the establishment. Such conduct disrupted the Plaintiff's ongoing economics relationship with the customers.

2.2 The interference was accomplished through improper means

The Defendant accomplished this interference through manifestly unlawful means by carrying out a violent attack, interfering with the customer and plaintiff Constitutional Right (Constitution 35(14)) to life and security.

2.3 The interference caused economic harm to the Plaintiff

As a foreseeable consequence of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff's business operations were interrupted, customers were placed in fear, and the commercial reputation of the establishment was harmed. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that customers cannot reasonably be expected to patronize a business where they face the risk of being violently attacked.

3. Punitive Damages
Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 3

(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.
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/redmont-civil-code-act.34107/
(2) Award:
(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.
(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.

3.1 The Defendant's conduct was outrageous

The Defendant's conduct constitutes a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and demonstrates a wilful and reckless disregard for the rights, interests, and safety of others.

The Defendant intentionally entered the Plaintiff's place of business armed with a weapon and proceeded to kill one customer while attempting to kill the Plaintiff and another customer (P-001, P-003, P-004)
Additionally, even after the Plaintiff repeatedly demanded that the Defendant cease the attacks, the Defendant persisted in the violent conduct. The Defendant consciously chose to continue the attack despite being fully aware of the harm being inflicted upon the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's customers, and the Plaintiff's business. (P-005, P-006, P-007)

3.2 The Defendant's actions satisfy several of the statutory indicators of outrageous conduct

Section 3(2)(b)(i): The Defendant intended to cause harm by intentionally attacking the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's customers.
Section 3(2)(b)(ii): The Defendant knew that carrying out a violent attack inside an operating business was likely to harm and seriously inconvenience the Plaintiff and others present.
Section 3(2)(b)(iii): At a minimum, the Defendant acted with reckless indifference as to the severe harm that would result.
Section 3(2)(b)(v): The Defendant engaged in repeated misconduct by continuing the attack even after being asked to stop.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 2,500$ (25 Civil Penalty Units) for nuisance.
2. 2,500$ for tortious interference.
3. 15,000$ for punitive damages for the outrageous conduct
4. 30% of the case value or 3,000$ for legal fees, whichever is higher.

witnesses: "Tameemkh" and "badbeatJackpot"

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 23 day of 07 2026