Lawsuit: In Session 15fine v wttn2c [2025] DCR 32

1

15fine

Citizen
5th Anniversary
15fine
15fine
Barrister
Joined
Apr 6, 2025
Messages
2

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


15fine
Plaintiff

v.

wttn2c
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On April 9th, 2025, the Plaintiff was twice murdered by the Defendant. Following these two murders, the Defendant proceeded to aim a weapon at the Plaintiff.

I. PARTIES
1. 15fine
2. wttn2c

II. FACTS
1. On the 9th of April, 2025, the Plaintiff was at spawn, with the intention of taking a relaxing walk through the city.
2. The Plaintiff was attacked and murdered by the Defendant. (P-001)
3. Upon returning to spawn, the Plaintiff was murdered a second time by the Defendant. (P-002)
4. Upon returning to spawn following this second murder, the Defendant brandished a firearm at the Plaintiff. (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant caused the Plaintiff to live in fear in Redmont. What the Plaintiff once perceived as an orderly city has now been transformed into one where the Plaintiff must be constantly alert, cautious, and vigilant, out of fear of being unlawfully attacked again.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

  1. Consequential Damages:
    • Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont: Under §7(1)(a)(III) of the Legal Damages Act, damages can be awarded for situations where ‘an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm’. The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 on this ground.
  2. Punitive Damages: The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in punitive damages to penalize the Defendant for their flagrant disregard for the law, and the wellbeing of their fellow citizens. Plaintiff believes that committing murder twice, and then threatening the victim by aiming a gun at them, rises to the level of ‘outrageous’ harm as stipulated in §5(2)(a) of the Legal Damages Act.
  3. Legal Fees: The Plaintiff is a licensed barrister representing himself, and seeks $6,000 in legal fees (equal to 30% of the total value of the case) under §9(2)(c) of the Legal Damages Act.

V. Evidence
The Plaintiff does not intend to summon witnesses in this matter.

p-001.png

p-002.png

p-003.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 April 2025

 
Your Honor,
I would lIke to file a Amicus Brief
 

Writ of Summons


@wttn2c is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of 15fine v. wttn2c [2025] DCR 32

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.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

As the 72-hour period has now lapsed without a response from the defendant, the plaintiff moves for a summary judgement.

 
15fine said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honor,

As the 72-hour period has now lapsed without a response from the defendant, the plaintiff moves for a summary judgement.

Click to expand...
Motion for Summary Judgement Denied. A public defender has been requested for the defendant.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

15fine

Plaintiff

v.

wttn2c

Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defence NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the plaintiff intended to have a relaxing walk, but AFFIRMS they were near spawn.

2. The Defence NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENIES that the defendant murdered somebody.

3. The Defence NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENIES the plaintiff returning to spawn, or that the defendant murdered someone a second time.

4. The Defence AFFIRMS a weapon was being pointed, but NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENIES that it was being pointed at the plaintiff.

II. DEFENCES

1. There is no verification that these images belong to the plaintiff.

2. Murder and Threats are Criminal Actions not Civil Actions, these actions should be reported to the authorities and action decided within the department.

3. There’s a reasonable expectation of prevention on the plaintiff’s behalf, and going to the same location as a perceived ‘threat’ is not prevention. There are alternative spawns and towns the plaintiff could venture, and free buses and trains to get them where they need to go.

4. The idea that this rose to the level of outrageous conduct is silly, Murder is a daily occurance in Redmont and this was a small line of alleged murders.

5. It’s unlikely that this action resulted in loss of enjoyment, or rose to the level of outrageous conduct.

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 16th day of APRIL 2025

 
We will now be entering Discovery, Discovery will last 72 hours starting now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top