Lawsuit: Pending Dearev v. irbelguim [2025] DCR 21

[dearev]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dearev
Plaintiff

v.

irbelguim
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

the Defendant on march 5th 2025, entered the redmont university, more specifically the room where various individuals were exercising their right to obtain a legal diploma after the exams were reset, the Defendant entered the room Several times, with a stone sword, the defendant attacked and killed the Plaintiff and several others multiple times. This obviously constitutes harassment (by targeting the same individuals multiple times) and prevention of exertion of civil rights (by killing the Plaintiff and multiple others, he prevented them from exercising their civil right of getting the legal diploma), this lawsuit isnt about murder but the prevention of exertion of civil rights caused by the defendant.

I. PARTIES
1. Dearev (Plaintiff)
2. irbelguim (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The defendant was equipped with a stone sword
2. The defendant killed, disturbed and punched multiple people while people were doing the new exams
3. A few individuals exercided their right to defend themselves, which resulted in the Defendant dying once.
4. after dying the defendant came back to again harass people
5. The Plaintiff and many others warned the Defendant to stop, he ignored.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of civil rights
by ´preventing individuals from doing the legal exam the Defendant violated their civil rights
2. Harassment
The Defendant repeatedly engaged in disruptive physical conduct to prevent them from completing a public educational process.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. in punitive damages the Plaintiff seeks for the following:
Any appropriate relief the court deems appropriate

2. in compensatory damages the Plaintiff seeks the following:
Any appropriate relief the court deems appropriate


witnesses:
1. Freeze_line (witnesses)
2. Roryyy___ (witnesses)
3. Vernicia (witnesses)

Spoiler: P-0001

Spoiler: P-0002

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 5th day of march 2025

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Writ of Summons

irbelguim is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Dearev v. irbelguim.

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.

 

[dearev]

Your honor, defendent has not showed up in the last 72 hours, the plaintiff requests a default judgement.

Writ of Summons

irbelguim is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Dearev v. irbelguim.

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.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The court will be summoning a Public Defender.

 

[A_Carter]

The court will be summoning a Public Defender.

Your honor, the Public Defender's Office is present representing the Defendant.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you, you have 72 hours to provide an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss.

 

[A_Carter]

Motion

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

The Defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 2.1 Lack of Standing.
The Plaintiff has clearly established that the Plaintiff has suffered no injury or damages from the incident he is claiming to have occurred. Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures clearly states that the Plaintiff must show that the Plaintiff "Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law." The Plaintiff is creating a lawsuit to gain money for himself, by claiming that others allegedly suffered injury from an incident that may have occurred. This case is eligible for a Sua Sponte Dismissal. The Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for the Sua Sponte Exception as the Plaintiff's relief is effectively "whatever the court wants". The Plaintiff has also submitted two pieces of "evidence" that do not even elude to any guilt on an individual. It is clear that the Plaintiff is simply here for a money grab at the expense of the Defendant. The Plaintiff has submitted no valuable evidence. The Plaintiff even tried to dismiss the Defendant's right to a Public Defender and request a default judgement so that he could be paid without the Defendant being able to have a fair trial because the Plaintiff understands that he has no standing. The Plaintiff's prayer for relief simply being "Any appropriate relief" clearly shows that the Plaintiff has not suffered injuries or damages. The Plaintiff will not be able to prove any damages throughout this case. His claims are simply that the Defendant was "preventing individuals" and "prevent them" the Plaintiff is speaking in terms referring to other people and not including himself. The Plaintiff himself not suffered any damage. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for alleged damages that occurred to other people. The only other parties that the Plaintiff has established and submitted before this court were witnesses, not victims. The Plaintiff has failed to include anyone that actually suffered any damage.

2. Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim.
The Plaintiff has failed to state any sort of claims that have damaged the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is claiming that a major serial murder occurred. Yet, the Plaintiff is only claiming harassment and a violation of civil rights. The Plaintiff is an investigator for the Department of Justice. The Plaintiff should have handled this case through the Department of Justice so that the alleged crimes could be punished appropriately. The Plaintiff has failed to show that authorities were notified to handle this situation. Instead, it appears that the Plaintiff watched this alleged act unfold and instead of upholding his responsibility to bring justice for victim's of crimes, the Plaintiff has decided to file this civil case so that he can benefit from the alleged suffering of victim's of an alleged heinous crime. This case should be dismissed under Lack of Claim as the Plaintiff will not be able to support a violation of civil rights or harassment with any sort of sufficient evidence. The Plaintiff alleges harassment occurred but does not state anywhere in their case filing that the Defendant said anything to them during the alleged incident. Harassment is defined by the Verbally Threatening Act as: "A person who uses disorderly behavior to an individual, a group of individuals, through any forms of communication, that may be deemed to a reasonable person as causing harassment, alarm or distress, will be guilty of an offense." The Plaintiff has failed to establish that any communication occurred between the parties involved. The communication requirement is defined in the name of the Act that defines Harassment. Harassment requires communication which is Verbally Threatening, hence the name of the Act. The Plaintiff alleges a civil rights violation but has not established how that applies or what action would have been a civil rights violation. The Plaintiff stated that the Defendant prevented individuals from doing their exams but does not state how that could be a civil rights violation and he does not cite anything which would establish what a civil rights violation would be. The Plaintiff also failed to state if anyone was unable to complete their exams. The Plaintiff states that individuals have a civil right to get a legal diploma but does not elude to anything that states this.

Part IV of the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Section 33, Subsection 9 states that: "Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation(...)". In reference to the Defendant's right to a speedy and fair trial, I would like to also bring to this Honorable Courts attention that the Plaintiff has a history of cases without any standing as seen in Dearev v. Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14. The majority of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in that case which is the same Plaintiff as this case was evidence that was illegally obtained. In DCR 14, the court denied several motions to dismiss that were submitted by the Defense. The Honorable Court then spent almost an entire month allowing that case to move forward. Only at the end, to find that it was probable that the Plaintiff himself was the one that posted the "defamatory" article himself so that he could go to court against the Defense at that time in an attempt at a money grab. I fear that my Defendant will suffer the same lack of a fair and speedy trail as seen in DCR 14. I humbly urge this Honorable Court to strongly consider this motion to dismiss and to grant it to protect the Defendant

To allow this case to move forward would set a dangerous precedent to allow an individual to sue a defendant for their own gain when it is clearly established by the Plaintiff himself that no actual injuries or damages occurred to the Plaintiff. The precedent of being allowed to sue for alleged damages that occurred to other people and gaining money for oneself is a dangerous one that I urge this Honorable Court to avoid. I respectfully request that this Court uphold the proper standards and protect the Defendant from a Frivolous money grab attempt. The Defendant only has 39 minutes of playtime, while the Plaintiff has over 5 days of playtime. The Plaintiff is clearly trying to utilize his experience as an advantage over the Defendant since the Defendant is an inexperienced player. The Plaintiff has clearly neglected his duties as an investigator and has instead decided to make some money for himself off of the alleged acts. To protect the Defendant and his rights, in terms of a fair trial this case should be dismissed. This case is teetering on the line of a Frivolous Filing and I respectfully ask that this Honorable Court recognize this and dismiss this case as to protect the Defendant from this improper filing.

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 march 2025

Very Respectfully,

A_Carter
Public Defenders Office

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Would the plaintiff like to respond?

 

[dearev]

Would the plaintiff like to respond?

Yes your honor

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

You have 48 hours.

 

[dearev]

RESPONSE TO MOTION​

​

1. Your honor, the defense argues the plaintiff hasnt been harmed and killed by the defense but its clearly written in the case filing that

the Defendant on march 5th 2025, entered the redmont university, more specifically the room where various individuals were exercising their right to obtain a legal diploma after the exams were reset, the Defendant entered the room Several times, with a stone sword, the defendant attacked and killed the Plaintiff and several others multiple times.​

Becuse the defendent killed the plaintiff multiple times, the plaintiff ended up failing the exam due to a distraction caused by the defense, your honor the defense again argues that

As to prove said point we'd like to ask for the following motion to be sustained

Motion

IN THE DISCTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff Submits this motion as to compel evidence that harm was indeed caused by the defense on the plaintiff

1. REASONS

(a) Defense argues no harm was caused
(b) Defense argues that the plaintiff is submitting this case for financial gain.
(c) To prove harm was done

2. EVIDENCE TO COMPEL
The Plaintiff respectufully requests as for the court to issue a subpoena for the release information on the defendant's criminal record, specially regarding this case and any murders that occured dated in the case filing; The plaintiff Respectufully asks this court to sustain this motion as to provide a quick trial without any disagreements.

2. the defense argues that:

The Plaintiff has failed to state any sort of claims that have damaged the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is claiming that a major serial murder occurred. Yet, the Plaintiff is only claiming harassment and a violation of civil rights. The Plaintiff is an investigator for the Department of Justice. The Plaintiff should have handled this case through the Department of Justice so that the alleged crimes could be punished appropriately.​

The Defendant’s argument is a clear misrepresentation of the Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff has not alleged a 'major serial murder' but instead stated claims for harassment and civil rights violations, the defense claims that "The Plaintiff should have handled this case through the Department of Justice" wheather the plaintiff did or not is irrelevant as that does not dismiss a civil claim to this case. Furthermore, the plaintiff's role in the departament of justice is irrelevant to the court on this matter, therefore this claim should be disregarded by the court.

3. The defense argues that:

Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation(...)". In reference to the Defendant's right to a speedy and fair trial, I would like to also bring to this Honorable Courts attention that the Plaintiff has a history of cases without any standing as seen in Dearev v. Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14. The majority of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in that case which is the same Plaintiff as this case was evidence that was illegally obtained. In DCR 14, the court denied several motions to dismiss that were submitted by the Defense.

The Defendant’s right to a speedy and fair trial is fully upheld in this case. The Plaintiff has followed all legal procedures and deadlines, and there is no evidence of undue delay or bias in the proceedings furthermore the Defendant fails to demonstrate how this case violates their right to a speedy trial, making this argument irrelevant.
The Defense claims that "the Plaintiff has a history of cases without any standing as seen in Dearev v. Plura72 and Alexandrian News [2025] DCR 14" this is completely irrelevant to the court, as past cases do no affect current ones (other then precendent which the defense dosent claim)

4. The defense argues that

The Plaintiff's prayer for relief simply being "Any appropriate relief" clearly shows that the Plaintiff has not suffered injuries or damages. The Plaintiff will not be able to prove any damages throughout this case. His claims are simply that the Defendant was "preventing individuals" and "prevent them" the Plaintiff is speaking in terms referring to other people and not including himself.

The Defendant’s argument is without merit. The Plaintiff’s request for ‘Any appropriate relief’ does not indicate a lack of damages but instead allows the Court to determine the most suitable remedy based on the evidence presented furthermore the Defendant incorrectly assumes that damages must be financial, while as non-economic damages are a viable relief in civil cases.
The Defense also claims that "His claims are simply that the Defendant was "preventing individuals" and "prevent them" the Plaintiff is speaking in terms referring to other people and not including himself." is irrelevant as the plaintiff clearly says that " the defendant attacked and killed the Plaintiff and several others multiple times." making this a irrelevant matter.

5. The defense argues that

To allow this case to move forward would set a dangerous precedent to allow an individual to sue a defendant for their own gain when it is clearly established by the Plaintiff himself that no actual injuries or damages occurred to the Plaintiff. The precedent of being allowed to sue for alleged damages that occurred to other people and gaining money for oneself is a dangerous one that I urge this Honorable Court to avoid. I respectfully request that this Court uphold the proper standards and protect the Defendant from a Frivolous money grab attempt. The Defendant only has 39 minutes of playtime, while the Plaintiff has over 5 days of playtime. The Plaintiff is clearly trying to utilize his experience as an advantage over the Defendant since the Defendant is an inexperienced player. The Plaintiff has clearly neglected his duties as an investigator and has instead decided to make some money for himself off of the alleged acts

The Defendant’s argument is legally unfounded and relies on speculation rather than substantive legal reasoning The Plaintiff has filed this case in accordance with the law and the Defendant’s assertion that this is a "money grab" is unsupported by any legal basis. The Defendant further claims that the Plaintiff has no standing, yet fails to establish why the Plaintiff's claims are invalid or why this Court should dismiss the case without allowing it to proceed to discovery and trial. The reference to playtime differences is irrelevant as legal claims are judged based on merit, not the amount of time spent ingame additionally accusations that the Plaintiff "neglected his duties" are unrelated to the issue at hand and do not constitute a valid argument for dismissal this case should be evaluated based on the legal claims presented not personal attacks or unfounded concerns about precedent.

Thank you.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Would the defense like to respond to the motion as we go into discovery?

 

[A_Carter]

Would the defense like to respond to the motion as we go into discovery?

The Defense holds no contest to the motion.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I would like to question the reasoning behind this motion, as the reasons provided were relatively unsubstantial. Specifically, how would this information contribute to your arguments or the court's understanding of this case?

Please respond within 24 hours.

 

[A_Carter]

I would like to question the reasoning behind this motion, as the reasons provided were relatively unsubstantial. Specifically, how would this information contribute to your arguments or the court's understanding of this case?

Please respond within 24 hours.

Your Honor, if it may please the court, I would like to introduce a piece of evidence from a freedom of information request that the Defense performed with the Department of Justice that would render the Motion to Compel a moot point.

 

[A_Carter]

Would the defense like to respond to the motion as we go into discovery?

Also Your Honor, after having some time to review the Plaintiff's Motion, I would like an opportunity to respond to it if possible. I apologize, I read the Motion as soon as I woke up and at the time did not find reason to counter it. After being awake and having some coffee and being able to review the Motion, I would like to respond if it would be permitted by this Honorable Court.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Also Your Honor, after having some time to review the Plaintiff's Motion, I would like an opportunity to respond to it if possible. I apologize, I read the Motion as soon as I woke up and at the time did not find reason to counter it. After being awake and having some coffee and being able to review the Motion, I would like to respond if it would be permitted by this Honorable Court.

You may respond, please take this into consideration next time.

 

[dearev]

I would like to question the reasoning behind this motion, as the reasons provided were relatively unsubstantial. Specifically, how would this information contribute to your arguments or the court's understanding of this case?​

Please respond within 24 hours.

RESPONSE​

Your honor, the plaintiff requested said motion to prove the plaintiff was indeed murdered by the defense, not only that but to prove damages were inflicted, therefore this is a crucial piece of evidence.

Thank you.