Lawsuit: Pending MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15

[Pepecuu]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7)
Plaintiff

v.

ForeverShadow1
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On January 19, 2025, at approximately 10:20 AM UTC, the Defendant unlawfully trespassed onto the Plaintiff's rented farm, identified as Wl-f086, under the false pretense of being "friends with the owner".

Upon discovering that the Plaintiff was the rightful tenant and not an acquaintance, the Defendant escalated the situation by brandishing a firearm and pointing it directly at the Plaintiff. Despite the Plaintiff's pleas for the Defendant to vacate the premises, the Defendant refused and, without justification, fatally shot the Plaintiff on the spot.

Following this initial act of violence, the Defendant continued to harass and repeatedly murder the Plaintiff over the course of the next few hours, severely disrupting their agricultural operations. These outrageous actions made by the Defendant displays their lack of responsibility to follow Redmont law.

Additionally, These killings had caused large quantities of clues such as blood splatter, to be strewn all over the farming area, leading to the Plaintiff and his employees to be unable to grow their usual agricultural produce for an extended period of time.


I. PARTIES
1. siebelol7 (Plaintiff)
2. ForeverShadow1 (Defendant)

The plaintiff will be represented by Pepecuu, and Proof of Representation is attached below.


II. FACTS
1. On January 19, 2025, at the Defendant unlawfully trespassed onto the Plaintiff's rented farm, under the false pretense of being "friends with the owner" (P-001).
2. Despite the Plaintiff's pleas for the Defendant to vacate the premises (P-002), the Defendant refused and fatally shot the Plaintiff on the spot (P-003).
3. The Defendant continued to murder the Plaintiff numerous times (P-004 to P-006), causing significant disruption to the Plaintiff’s work as a farmer.
4. These killings had caused large quantities of “clues” to be strewn all over the farming area, leading to the Plaintiff and his employees to be unable to grow their usual agricultural produce for an extended period of time.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Lost income due to blood splatter all over the farm, causing the farm to be unable to grow for 3 days (P-007).
2. The defendant’s dangerous and violent actions (P-004 to P-006) shows the total disregard of Redmont law, and therefore should be punished and deterred.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $9361.20 in Compensatory Damages due to lost income in the time period between 19th January 2025 and 22nd January 2025. Over the 3 days, the Plaintiff lost 11.6 hours worth of production, calculated by the formula (27.08333 (The playtime of the Plaintiff for the last 7 days, as shown in P-008) / 7 days * 3 days (The length of the time in which the Plaintiff had lost their income)).
In these 11.6 hours of playtime, the Plaintiff is estimated to have lost 556.8 stacks of sugarcane, based on the harvesting rate of 4 stacks of sugarcane per 5 minutes (P-015), multiplied by the 11.6 hours of playtime. The plaintiff is also estimated to have lost 1461.6 stacks of wheat, based on the harvesting rate of 14 stacks of haybales per hour (P-015), multiplied by 9 due to the conversion between haybale blocks to wheat (P-017), and further multiplied by 11.6 hours of playtime. Therefore, the loss in crop production have a value of $2784 (at $5 per stack (P-016)) and $6577.20 (at $4.50 per stack (P-016)) for the sugarcane and haybales respectively.
2. $5000 in Punitive Damages as punishment and deterrence for the Defendant and others who wish to commit similar crimes and undermine the rule of law in Redmont.
3. $4308.36 in Legal Fees (30% of the value of the case) to cover the costs the Plaintiff incurred hiring Pepecuu as their legal counsel in this case.


V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Which court did you intend to file this in?

 

[Pepecuu]

Which court did you intend to file this in?

District court, i just saw the mistake in the filing, i will amend it at once, sorry about that Your Honor.

Edit: Filing Amended.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you, summons will be issued shortly.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honor, in order to preserve our right to a speedy trial, the Plaintiff would like to request that summons be issued as soon as possible.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Writ of Summons

ForeverShadow1 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of siebelol7 v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15

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.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff would like to request permission to amend the filing, as the Plaintiff has renamed themselves from siebelol7 to MrCheesGuy, and the Plaintiff would like to have that reflected in the court filing.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

You may.

 

[Pepecuu]

The case filing has been amended, thank you Your Honor.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

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

The Defendant has failed to appear before the court for over 72 hours after the posted writ of summons. The Plaintiff thereby motions for a default judgement based on the established facts of the case.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The motion for summary judgement is rejected, a public defender has been called.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,
I am present.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Please present an answer to complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

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

The Defendant has failed to appear before the court twice now, once for over 72 hours after the writ of summons and now, more outrageously for over 48 hours after the note for the Defendant to provide an answer to complaint, with the Public Defender as the acknowledged legal counsel for the Defendant.

It is obvious that the Defendant is disrespecting the rules and procedures of the courts of Redmont, while also simultaneously violating the Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial. Therefore, the Plaintiff motions once again for a default judgement based on the established facts of the case.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Following precedent set by .Lucky_waq v. YourChillGamer [2025] FCR 15, I will be rejecting the motion for summary judgement, however the Public Defender office is charged with contempt of court and will be recurringly charged until an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss is filed. As this is their second offense, the fine will be $1000, in addition to $500 (standard $50/min in jail) to compensate for the jailtime prescribed by law.

 

[Babysoga4real]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

(MrCheesGuy)
Plaintiff

v.

(ForeverShadow)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence affirms all.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence objects that it was done with Bad Intent. The Defence wishes that Siebelol7 be called as a Witnesss

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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.

Please present an answer to complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The Public Defender is dismissed from this case due to ineffective counsel. @Anaphase_Andy, you are required to appoint another Public Defender within 72 hours.

 

[Babysoga4real]

The Public Defender is dismissed from this case due to ineffective counsel. @Anaphase_Andy, you are required to appoint another Public Defender within 72 hours.

Your Honor I was preparing them on Discors I pasted the Wrong one.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor I was preparing them on Discors I pasted the Wrong one.

You are currently dismissed from this case. The next outburst will result in a contempt charge.

This goes for everyone, any more tomfoolery in my courtroom will henceforth result in a charge of contempt of court.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

@Babysoga4real, you are held in contempt of court. After being dismissed from the case, you are not entitled to edit your answer to complaint. To be clear, your answer to complaint is currently stricken from the record.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

I have been assigned to this case as the new public defender.

I respectfully ask for a 48 hour extension so that I may prepare a proper answer to the complaint.

Proof of representation attached.

Spoiler

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Motion

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

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

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

Rule 5.12 ‘plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case’ --
The plaintiff in this case does not have the standing to pursue it with the defendant. The plaintiff has provided a list of alleged crimes, and seeks to hold the existence of clues and subsequent delayed action of detectives against the defendant.

It is unclear by the evidence provided by the plaintiff that the clues were reported to the detectives at all, suggesting the possibility that this harm was partially self-inflicted.

If the clues were reported, then the delayed action by the department’s detectives should not be held against the defendant. If this case were to proceed it would suggest that a department's inaction could lead to increasingly large fines, of which any current and future defendant would have no direct control over.

The plaintiff should instead file against the Department of Homeland Security if they wish to allege that the clues continued existence interrupted operations in a harmful manner and NOT against a private citizen.

2. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1(2) (Standing Application)

Rule 2.1(2) ‘The cause of injury was against the law’ --
The cause of the damages was the existence and persistence of the blood splatter on the property. It is not illegal in of itself to cause blood to exist, the method of which (Murder) to cause it may be illegal, but that is under the jurisdiction of the DHS as it is a summary offense.

3. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)

Rule 5.5 ‘claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge’ --
The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that there was an injury with a remedy under the law, and lacks the standing to pursue this case.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

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

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

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

Rule 5.12 ‘plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case’ --
The plaintiff in this case does not have the standing to pursue it with the defendant. The plaintiff has provided a list of alleged crimes, and seeks to hold the existence of clues and subsequent delayed action of detectives against the defendant.

It is unclear by the evidence provided by the plaintiff that the clues were reported to the detectives at all, suggesting the possibility that this harm was partially self-inflicted.

If the clues were reported, then the delayed action by the department’s detectives should not be held against the defendant. If this case were to proceed it would suggest that a department's inaction could lead to increasingly large fines, of which any current and future defendant would have no direct control over.

The plaintiff should instead file against the Department of Homeland Security if they wish to allege that the clues continued existence interrupted operations in a harmful manner and NOT against a private citizen.

2. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1(2) (Standing Application)

Rule 2.1(2) ‘The cause of injury was against the law’ --
The cause of the damages was the existence and persistence of the blood splatter on the property. It is not illegal in of itself to cause blood to exist, the method of which (Murder) to cause it may be illegal, but that is under the jurisdiction of the DHS as it is a summary offense.

3. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)

Rule 5.5 ‘claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge’ --
The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that there was an injury with a remedy under the law, and lacks the standing to pursue this case.

Your Honor, I would like to request permission to respond to this motion.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

You may.

 

[Pepecuu]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff's legal counsel respectfully submits this opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Complaint sets forth valid claims for relief, including the Defendant's intentional infliction of economic damages. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss lacks merit and should be denied in its entirety.

1. The Plaintiff Has Standing to Pursue This Case (Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.12)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks standing under Rule 5.12 because the delayed actions of detectives should not be held against the defendant. This argument is misplaced. The Plaintiff’s injuries (and therefore the crime scene) arose directly from Defendant’s actions, not from any alleged inaction by the Department of Homeland Security. The Defendant trespassed onto Plaintiff’s rented farm, falsely claimed to have permission, and then proceeded to fatally shoot Plaintiff, causing direct and provable financial harm. Defendant’s attempt to shift blame onto law enforcement does not negate the Plaintiff’s standing, as the damages claimed were a direct and foreseeable result of Defendant’s unlawful actions.

2. The Defendant’s Actions Were Against the Law (Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1(2))
The persistence of the crime scene (blood splatter) is not the primary cause of injury; rather, it is Defendant’s repeated acts of violence and trespassing that resulted in harm.
The Plaintiff seeks compensation for lost income resulting from Defendant’s unlawful actions, which are cognizable claims under civil law (zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 75).

3. The Complaint States a Valid Claim for Relief (Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5)
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s claims lack sufficient evidence. However, the Complaint includes detailed allegations of Defendant’s direct economic harm to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has provided a calculation of lost farm revenue, demonstrating a concrete financial injury.
Additionally, while trespassing may be a summary offence, it can be used form the basis for a civil claim when it results in financial loss (Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20).

For the aforementioned reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Thank you.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

P-7, P-9, P-10, P-11, and P-12 are inadmissible as evidence and are struck from the record.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, I will be allowing for discovery. Please attach any evidence and witnesses you would like to present within the required time.

 

[Pepecuu]

Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, I will be allowing for discovery. Please attach any evidence and witnesses you would like to present within the required time.

Your Honor, I would like to confirm that Discovery will last 72 hours (Unless both parties decide to end discovery early), as stated under Rule 4.3?

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff submits 3 more pieces of evidence, named P-015, P-016 and P-017.

Spoiler: P-015

Spoiler: P-016

Spoiler: P-017

The case filing has been amended to reference these new evidences instead of the ones that have been struck.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff would like to add the people listed below to the Plaintiff's witness list:

- Meneer_Lolo (Proof of Witness 1)
- Vlekje2012 (Proof of Witness 2)

Spoiler: Proof of Witness 1

Spoiler: Proof of Witness 2

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor, I would like to confirm that Discovery will last 72 hours (Unless both parties decide to end discovery early), as stated under Rule 4.3?

Indeed.

 

[Pepecuu]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff's legal counsel would like to request that the Plaintiff's witness list be summoned. Thank you.