Lawsuit: Adjourned Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your Honour, I, Marissa4, am present
 
The Plaintiff can start questioning their witness
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, it has been more than 72 hours since the plaintiff could start asking questions to their witness. This far exceeds the 24 hours allowed under Court Rule 6.6. The defense therefore requests the plaintiffs right to ask questions to their witness be forfeit and allow the defense to start questioning the witnesses. The defense also requests for any question from the plaintiff to their witness that comes after this objection to be struck.

 
Superbiebel said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, it has been more than 72 hours since the plaintiff could start asking questions to their witness. This far exceeds the 24 hours allowed under Court Rule 6.6. The defense therefore requests the plaintiffs right to ask questions to their witness be forfeit and allow the defense to start questioning the witnesses. The defense also requests for any question from the plaintiff to their witness that comes after this objection to be struck.

Click to expand...
Overruled I am going to give the Plaintiff a final 24 hours to question their witness otherwise they will be held in contempt for wasting this court's time.
 

Motion


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

The plaintiff has already exceeded the 72 hour mark. Even a 24 or even a 48 hour extension that was granted where a reason is given, would have passed already. Now the court has ultimately given the plaintiff a total of 4 full days to come up with questions for their own witness, without any explanation or reason whatsoever needed from the plaintiff. The defense would also like to point out that there are two lawyers working for the plaintiff. The defense believes this is excessive and therefore respectfully asks the Court to reconsider their original ruling.

 
1. Describe your bond with the animals. Were they more than just farm animals to you?
2. How did you feel when you discovered the animals had been killed?

5. Did this incident impact your ability to focus on daily activities or work or did it ever make you think about quitting your work
6. How do you feel knowing the Defendant intentionally killed the animals?
7. Did you name or treat any of these animals as companions rather than just farm property?
10. Do you believe the Defendant’s actions were cruel or unnecessary? How has this affected you
11. How did the loss of profit due to the murder of animals impact your emotions
 
1. Describe your bond with the animals. Were they more than just farm animals to you?
Yes they were more than just farm animals to me. I took care of them and watched them grow. i enjoyed being able to give them the freedom to roam around in their pastures. I enjoyed their company whenever i was on my farm (which is a lot of the time i'm online). I was proud that i was able to take care of them and feed them my own home-grown crops, making sure that they got the best quality of food.

2. How did you feel when you discovered the animals had been killed?
I was in shock that it had happened again. It made me sad that someone decided to enter my property just to kill these innocent animals. their lifes were taken away from them. i couldnt believe that someone decides to just kill someone elses animals for fun. what i had build up with my animals was gone. I wish i could have avoided it. They did not deserve to end like this when they should have had more time to roam around and enjoy the fresh air.

5. Did this incident impact your ability to focus on daily activities or work or did it ever make you think about quitting your work
Yes it did. I was doubting whether or not to get animals again. I do not want to fear entering my property every time, because i never know whether my animals are still there or not. I do not want to have to grief the loss of my animals every time they get killed by others. Not knowing what their end looked like is very upsetting.

6. How do you feel knowing the Defendant intentionally killed the animals?
It mostly upsets me. I do not understand why someone gets joy out of killing someone elses animals. It also makes me mad, because this is the second time the Defendant has killed my animals. I even feel regret, that i did not sue them the first time.

7. Did you name or treat any of these animals as companions rather than just farm property?
Yes, i made sure to hand feed them the best quality of food there was. I enjoyed their company whenever i was working on my farm. Even when i was working on my crops, i enjoyed hearing them and not having to feel alone.

10. Do you believe the Defendant’s actions were cruel or unnecessary? How has this affected you
Yes I believe it was both cruel or unnecessary. This was the second time this person has killed my animals. The first time I decided not to sue, as i wanted to believe that this would not happen again. But after hearing that he killed my animals again I decided to sue. I could not let this happen to my animals again. If he really needed the animal products he should have just gotten his own animals. I feel like he deliberately killed them again. Im not sure if he even did it for the products or just to hurt me. Why would someone kill other peoples' animals for fun? Why?

11. How did the loss of profit due to the murder of animals impact your emotions
I was very proud of everything i built up from the ground. having my animals killed, and thus also suffering financial damages was really upsetting. Not only was the fact that someone killed my animals upsetting, knowing that this also made it harder for me to make money. I had to get new eggs and made the decision to spend resources on making a stronger enclosure, that unfortunately also takes away some of their freedom. I am sad that i had to make that decision, as that is not something i want for my animals
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Superbiebel said:

Motion


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

The plaintiff has already exceeded the 72 hour mark. Even a 24 or even a 48 hour extension that was granted where a reason is given, would have passed already. Now the court has ultimately given the plaintiff a total of 4 full days to come up with questions for their own witness, without any explanation or reason whatsoever needed from the plaintiff. The defense would also like to point out that there are two lawyers working for the plaintiff. The defense believes this is excessive and therefore respectfully asks the Court to reconsider their original ruling.

Click to expand...
Overruled as the witness has now been questioned.

The Defense can now Cross examine the witness if they please.
 
  1. Did you ever name the killed animals?
  2. If yes, did you write these names down anywhere? Did you tell them to someone?
  3. How does this “special bond” allow you to kill the animals for their products?
  4. Do you feel any remorse or distress for killing at least 218 animals in about a month?
  5. Did you ever calculate or estimate the financial loss? If yes, please give me a rough overview of how you did that?
  6. Did you ever calculate or estimate the financial resources needed to reinforce the enclosure? If yes, please give me a rough overview of how you did that?
  7. What do you mean by “quality” of the food you gave your animals?
  8. Do you need to feed animals in Minecraft or in DC for another purpose than breeding? Is this even possible?
  9. How do you “hand feed” an animal in minecraft for another purpose than breeding?
  10. “Hand feeding” implies another method of feeding. Is there another method of feeding an animal other than right clicking the animal?
  11. How did these kills by fire happen?
  12. Did you ever put the animals in a small enclosure?
  13. How did these kills by cramming happen?
  14. Do you feel any remorse or distress from the cramming kills?

NOTE: More questions may follow based on witness response.
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Based on the submitted evidence of this case, the witness cannot know if the defendant killed the animals “for fun”. The witness even admits to not knowing the reason behind the animal kills. The defense would like to request the parts mentioning killing the animals “for fun” to be struck.

 
Superbiebel said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Based on the submitted evidence of this case, the witness cannot know if the defendant killed the animals “for fun”. The witness even admits to not knowing the reason behind the animal kills. The defense would like to request the parts mentioning killing the animals “for fun” to be struck.

Click to expand...
Sustained
 
  1. No, i did not
  2. See previous reply
  3. Not sure what exactly you are referring to with ''special bond''. But killing the animals is part of my job. It isn't nice to do. But i do it knowing that i did my best to care for them.
  4. Like i said, it is part of my job. But do i enjoy it or think it's fun, no.
  5. No, i did not
  6. No, i did not, but I added 3 spruce fence gates, 143 spruce fences and 1008 jungle slabs.
  7. With the quality i mean that i know where the food is produced. All of the food i give my animals is produced on my own farm, in the open air.
  8. No you do not need to, but this is actually possible. the younger animals can be fed as well
  9. right click on the animal with the food in your hand.
  10. No there isn't, sorry for the confusion
  11. I kill my animals with an upgraded sword (that includes fire), killing animals is bad either way, but i want it to happen as quick as possible, so that they had minimal suffering. I am planning on upgrading it some more to minimize suffering.
  12. No, i did not put them in any small enclosures
  13. At one point when breeding some animals started dying because they were all following me. at that point i immediately stopped breeding them. After this happened i make sure to avoid this from happening again.
  14. Yes i do. I feel very bad that this happened and i wish i could have undone this. I did not want them to end like this. It really upset me when i saw them dying like that
 
Last edited:
Marissa4 said:
  1. No, i did not
  2. See previous reply
  3. Not sure what exactly you are referring to with ''special bond''. But killing the animals is part of my job. It isn't nice to do. But i do it knowing that i did my best to care for them.
  4. Like i said, it is part of my job. But do i enjoy it or think it's fun, no.
  5. No, i did not
  6. No, i did not, but I added 3 spruce fence gates, 143 spruce fences and 1008 jungle slabs.
  7. No you do not need to, but this is actually possible. the younger animals can be fed as well
  8. right click on the animal with the food in your hand.
  9. No there isn't, sorry for the confusion
  10. I kill my animals with an upgraded sword (that includes fire), killing animals is bad either way, but i want it to happen as quick as possible, so that they had minimal suffering. I am planning on upgrading it some more to minimize suffering.
  11. No, i did not put them in any small enclosures
  12. At one point when breeding some animals started dying because they were all following me. at that point i immediately stopped breeding them. After this happened i make sure to avoid this from happening again.
  13. Yes i do. I feel very bad that this happened and i wish i could have undone this. I did not want them to end like this. It really upset me when i saw them dying like that
Click to expand...
Could you recheck your answers because I asked 14 questions, and I got 13 answers. Additionally some of the answers are pretty weird when paired with the question.
 
Superbiebel said:
Could you recheck your answers because I asked 14 questions, and I got 13 answers. Additionally some of the answers are pretty weird when paired with the question.
Click to expand...
My apologies, i edited the post. I missed question 7. Everything should be correct now.
 
For @asexualdinosaur:
1. Do you verify that these coreprotect logs are truthful and real?
2. Did Marissa4 use or rename a nametag anywhere on the property?
 
for @Marissa4:
15. How much were you compensated by the DHS/DOJ/other government institution for each killed animal? How much was this in total?
16. Did this cover the costs you incurred? Did it cover more than these costs?
17. Since killing animals is such an unpleasant part of your job, why choose this job?
18. Did you put fire aspect on your sword so that the animal drops would be instantly cooked?
19. How much would it cost in normal operations through /find to get the resources needed to reinforce the enclosure?
20. How did you get to such a specific number of resources needed to reinforce the enclosure?
21. Is there any difference in the food that is produced on an open farm in contrast to food that is grown on a hidden farm in the city for example? Is this difference observable in any way?
22. How can you get emotional harm from financial loss if you do not know the amount that was lost?
23. Doesn't it hurt more for the animal to have to get hit multiple times while being burned alive by the enchant than to just hit the same amount of times?
 
15. I do not know where i can find this, if you can let me know i can check this
16. See previous reply
17. Because I enjoy being able to build something from scratch. I also like the plots on willow and the custom crops and foods in this server, thats why i decided to start a farm.
18. Yes
19. Atm only the jungle slabs are available through /find. these cost 0,10 per slab, so for the roof that is $100,80. For the fence and gates there is nothing for sale at this moment, so i am not able to give you a calculation on those resources
20. I counted the fence and gates added, and then multiplied the length with the width so that i knew the amount of slabs needed for the roof.
21. No, this is more for the rp aspect
22. Because i know that it slows the process at which im building up my business, and i had to get new spawn eggs again
23. I only need to hit the animal once in order for them to get killed, so no, i dont believe that makes a difference
 
For question 15, you should have gotten a dm from the "Server" bot. If that is not possible the unfine can be requested from DHS I believe.
 
Your Honor since witness Marissa4 has trouble finding information of this fact, and in the interest of time, the defense would like to submit exhibits D-043 (the photo) and D-044(the link) from the November government budget transcript. This report was released on the 8th of December and thus could not be submitted in the discovery stage.

Dept. State

Budget Report Thread 'Budget Report - NOVEMBER 2024'

1733612616868.png


BUDGET REPORT

The purpose of the Budget Report is to increase fiscal transparency. This information is provided in good faith and although it may be listed here as a goal, it may not occur. This report simply outlines Government balances and expenditures.

DECEMBER 2024 APPROPRIATIONS

On 30 November 2024, President UnityMaster signed the Appropriations Act - DEC 2024 to allocate funding for the federal government. The allocations were as follows:

Department of State (DOS): $199,999.99;
Department of Homeland Security...
1734789296741.png
 
15.
Server
APP
— 11/1/2024 8:45 PM
DHS » Marissa4 has been unfined $1500 by HellsideBurnton.

HSBurnton — 11/1/2024 8:47 PM
Animal murder compensations for x15 farm animals (edited)

Server
APP
— 11/1/2024 8:50 PM
DHS » Marissa4 has been unfined $2000 by HellsideBurnton.

HSBurnton — 11/1/2024 8:50 PM
Animal Murder Compensation for x20 Animals

I am not sure as to why I got unfined twice, but bc 15 animals were killed i assume the top one is the correct one
16. i do not know whether it covered all the costs that were incurred, as i do not have an overview of the financial loss
 
Since it seems Witness Questioning is over. We will proceed to Closing Statements.

Due to it being Christmas eve, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to post their closing statements starting on Dec 26th.
 
CLOSING ARGUMENT


DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Your Honor,


This case is fundamentally about responsibility, accountability, and the need for deterrence against malicious and harmful actions. On October 15, 2024, the Defendant, SplashyBoi74, intentionally entered the Plaintiff’s property and killed 15 animals belonging to the Plaintiff, Marissa4. These were not random or accidental deaths—they were deliberate and malicious acts that caused significant emotional and financial harm.


Emotional Harm


The Plaintiff has testified extensively about the emotional bond she shared with her animals. These were not mere farming assets but living beings cared for and nurtured by the Plaintiff. The Defendant has tried to argue that these animals were replaceable and a routine part of farm life, but this is a gross oversimplification.


The Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrated that these animals were an integral part of her daily life. She fed them her home-grown crops, ensured they lived in the best conditions she could provide, and derived both companionship and pride from their care. Their sudden and brutal loss left her distraught and questioning her ability to continue her farming activities.


Furthermore, this was not the first time the Defendant had harmed the Plaintiff’s animals. The Plaintiff’s feelings of betrayal and distress were magnified by the repeated nature of the Defendant’s actions, making this a case of sustained emotional trauma, not a one-time incident.


Financial Harm


The Defendant has attempted to minimize the financial loss caused by the killings, arguing that the Plaintiff’s costs were negligible. However, the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence demonstrate otherwise.


1. Replacement Costs: While the Defendant claims that spawn eggs are inexpensive, they ignore the cumulative cost and effort required to rebuild a farm after such a loss. The Plaintiff had to purchase new spawn eggs, which slowed her business operations and increased her workload.


2. Reinforcement Costs: After this incident, the Plaintiff had to invest in reinforcing her animal enclosures with additional fences and slabs, a cost that would not have been necessary without the Defendant’s actions.


3. I recognize that the defendant will talk about the government compensation so i would like to address it here. The compensation received by the government is seperate from what we are asking here. Here we are asking for punitive damages. Which are completely seperate from what we were given by the government


While the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff did not calculate exact losses, this does not negate the real financial impact she experienced. The Defendant’s attempt to downplay these damages does not absolve them of responsibility for causing the harm.


Malicious Intent and Need for Deterrence


The Defendant’s actions were not accidental but intentional, as evidenced by the Defendant’s own admission of guilt. Despite knowing the Plaintiff’s animals were personal property, the Defendant killed them for reasons that can only be described as malicious or, at best, reckless.


This is not simply a matter of restitution—it is a matter of justice and deterrence. The Plaintiff seeks punitive damages not just to recover what was lost but to send a clear message: such harmful actions cannot and will not be tolerated in our community. Punitive damages are specifically designed for cases like this, where the Defendant’s behavior is so egregious that it requires additional measures to prevent recurrence.


Conclusion


Your Honor, this case is about more than just financial compensation—it is about fairness and holding the Defendant accountable for the harm they have caused. The Plaintiff has proven, through both testimony and evidence, that she suffered significant emotional and financial harm due to the Defendant’s malicious actions.


We respectfully request that the Court:





2. Award punitive damages to deter the Defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future.


3. Recognize the emotional toll that the Defendant’s actions have had on the Plaintiff.


The Defendant must be held accountable for their deliberate and harmful behavior. The Plaintiff deserves justice, and this Court has the opportunity to deliver it.


Thank you.
 
Last edited:
The defense has 72 hours to post their closing statement.
 
Your honor, I would like to ask for a 48 hour extension. I was busy with my exams and I havent been able to work on my closing statement.
 
Superbiebel said:
Your honor, I would like to ask for a 48 hour extension. I was busy with my exams and I havent been able to work on my closing statement.
Click to expand...
Granted
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The defense believes that the plaintiff is trying to do the work of the DOJ as a private citizen. The defense would like to point out that their previous case on this issue was Sua Sponte dismissed because of exactly this issue. The defense agrees that there is a need to hold people accountable for their misdeeds and crimes, and this was done by the DHS convicting my client for the animal killings. A private citizen should not interfere with this.

The defense would like to underscore that the defendant had a spotless criminal record before this case, as seen in exhibit D-020. The plaintiff also alleged this was the second time that the defendant killed animals of the plaintiff, but has not submitted any proof. The defendant was also never convicted of this since their criminal record is clean. The witness didn’t recognise the second unfine in the November budget report. The defense therefore urges the court to disregard this allegation.

The evidence on the side of the plaintiff is thin. The only evidence that might be seen as supporting the claims of relief is the testimony of the plaintiff themselves. This is undoubtedly biased as seen from the use of vocabulary in their testimony and the contradiction that was made and subsequently struck.

Emotional harm
The plaintiff testified extensively about the emotional bond they had with the animals. However the court should keep in mind that the plaintiff killed 218 animals in a single month. They testify that it absolutely broke their heart seeing that these animals were killed, but almost brushes off that they killed about 7 animals per day on average in that month. The defense feels this is at least contradictory since the emotional harm must rise to the point of outrageousness, but these were animals that were regularly killed themselves.

Financial harm
The plaintiff argues a “long term impact of such a large scale loss” in their opening statement, but has not done any calculations or even the most basic of estimates for the alleged extreme losses. The plaintiff themself even testified to this. Only when the defense actually asked for any costs that were incurred, does the plaintiff estimate these based on a basic calculation, not any actual costs that were recorded at the time they happened. How can you experience emotional distress on a financial loss when you don’t even know the financial loss?
Calculations done by the defense show clear as day that the harm was clearly compensated even when taking a wide maximum of the costs. The biggest cost is the purchase of new spawn eggs for 60 dollars each(for a total of $900). This purchase would be optional since the same effect can be achieved by breeding cows which were left on the farm or to get animal spawn eggs from the wild since the plaintiff has the “farmer” job. The plaintiff alleges that spawn eggs were used but has not provided any proof that this actually happened.
The lost animal drops itself make for a minimal cost, as calculated in closed court.
The sum of all costs like the spawn eggs, the animal drops and the reinforcements stays well under the compensation received from the government. The defense would even contend that a profit of about $400 was made on this, since the compensation was $1500
The defense does not agree that the government compensation does not play a role. The court will determine if the financial loss had an impact to the point of outrageousness on the financial and emotional position of the plaintiff. After government compensation there was not financial harm, but even a financial benefit. The defense therefore urges the court to reject the notion of financial harm and emotional distress based on the alleged financial harm, especially not to the point of outrageousness.

The plaintiff also talks about the punitive damages recovering what was lost, but this is absolutely not the nature of these damages. That is what compensatory damages are for, of which there are none requested. This underscores once again the private citizen prosecution argument. It is also contradictory to the plaintiffs argument that the government compensation is separate, since this is not about compensation.

To conclude, the plaintiff has submitted not enough evidence at all to prove the high bar of “outrageous”. They make a lot of allegations and arguments but backs them with thin evidence/biased testimony and most of the time with no evidence at all.

Finally, the defense would like to thank the court and the plaintiff. Solid Law wishes them both a Happy New Year.

 
This case is now in recess pending a verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant unlawfully killed 15 of their animals.
2. This act has caused Financial loss and emotional distress for the plaintiff
3. The actions by the defendant are heinous and need to be deterred.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. No emotional harm had occurred shown by the lack of attachment from the routine killing of the animals by the plaintiff
2. The plaintiff has failed to prove any financial harm apart from their own testimony
3. there is not enough evidence to warrant outrageous behavior for punitive damages to be granted.

III. THE COURT OPINION

Both sides of this case focused heavily on the emotional and financial damages. Whether or not these damages did occur is not enough for damages to be granted as no compensatory damages were request, only punitive. This leaves an extra burden for the plaintiff to prove, not only did the damages occur but were the damages outrageous.

For emotional damages, with the evidence provided I find little to none. Clearly there seemed to be no direct relationship between the plaintiff and the animals except for business. The constant slaughtering of these animals show this. The animals were only used for commercial purposes.

For financial damages it is easy to see that they did occur. The killing of these animals disrupted the plaintiffs business practices and stunted their flow of income. Were these damages outrageous? I can not say they were. Only 15 animals were killed which is not enough for a person to live off of completely by itself and finally with the compensation already provide by the DHS, this commercial practices was not stunted for very long.

IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Defense.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top