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

Pepecuu

Pepecuu

Citizen
Court Clerk
Representative
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Statesman
Pepecuu
Pepecuu
Court Clerk
Joined
Jan 3, 2025
Messages
79

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

1738723593512.png

1738723679074.png

1738723751640.png

1738723918417.png

1738723934128.png

1738723997664.png

1738724053734.png

1738724104061.png

1738724172879.png

1738724255353.png

1738724337097.png

1738724411522.png

1738724475732.png

1738724492927.png

1738735913634.png

 
Last edited:
Which court did you intend to file this in?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Which court did you intend to file this in?
Click to expand...
District court, i just saw the mistake in the filing, i will amend it at once, sorry about that Your Honor.

Edit: Filing Amended.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, summons will be issued shortly.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

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.

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

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.

 
The motion for summary judgement is rejected, a public defender has been called.
 
Your Honor,
I am present.
 
Please present an answer to complaint within 48 hours.
 

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.

 
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.
 
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.

Mask3D_WOLF said:
Please present an answer to complaint within 48 hours.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your Honor I was preparing them on Discors I pasted the Wrong one.
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your Honor I was preparing them on Discors I pasted the Wrong one.
Click to expand...
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.
 
@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.
 
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.
1739767994231.png
 

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.

 
asexualdinosaur said:

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.

Click to expand...
Your Honor, I would like to request permission to respond to this motion.
 
You may.
 
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.
 
P-7, P-9, P-10, P-11, and P-12 are inadmissible as evidence and are struck from the record.
 
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.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiff submits 3 more pieces of evidence, named P-015, P-016 and P-017.

Screenshot 2025-02-18 123628.png

Screenshot 2025-02-18 123649.png

Screenshot 2025-02-18 123642.png

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

Screenshot_20250218_153058_Discord.jpg

Screenshot_20250218_153044_Discord.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pepecuu said:
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?
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiff's legal counsel would like to request that the Plaintiff's witness list be summoned. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Your Honor, it has been more than 72 hours since the end of discovery. To preserve the Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial, the Plaintiff's legal counsel would like your Honor to move the case to the Defendant's answer to complaint, as they have yet to file one as of this post.

Additionally, the Plaintiff's legal counsel would like to request for your honor's ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiff's legal counsel's request to summon the Plaintiff's witness list, as stated in the previous reply to this thread. Thank you.
 
At this time, I am still deliberating on the motion to dismiss. I apologize for not making that clear prior to this. Court is currently in recess.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss. Witness summons will follow shortly.
 
Your Honor, I will be representing the Defendant in this case from now on. I will be doing so as a Public Defender.

The Defendant would like to respectfully request clarification from the court regarding their planned order of events for the court proceedings of this case, as it appears to the Defendant that the court has decided not to follow the general guide as described in this court's rules and procedures. The Defendant would like to also respectfully request the court's reasoning behind their decision to reject the motion to dismiss, if the court would be willing to provide this.
 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, I will be representing the Defendant in this case from now on. I will be doing so as a Public Defender.

The Defendant would like to respectfully request clarification from the court regarding their planned order of events for the court proceedings of this case, as it appears to the Defendant that the court has decided not to follow the general guide as described in this court's rules and procedures. The Defendant would like to also respectfully request the court's reasoning behind their decision to reject the motion to dismiss, if the court would be willing to provide this.
Click to expand...
I am unsure of what you are referring to when you allege that the court has not been following court procedure. I ask that you clarify this within 24 hours and familiarize yourself with rule 1.2, if applicable, while doing so.

As for the rejection of the motion to dismiss, there is sufficient standing for the plaintiff to continue this case. The plaintiff may pursue this case for the fact that an illegal act has damaged them to the degree that they are requesting damages. This is regardless of the inability of the Department of Homeland Security to collect the blood splatters, though the point raised by the defense in the motion will be taken into consideration in the verdict.
 
@Meneer_Lolo and Vlekje2012 are required to appear before the District Court in the case of MrCheesGuy v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15. Failure to appear within 48 hours will result in a charge of contempt of court. Please familiarize yourselves with the case and reply that you are present.
 
Pepecuu said:

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

View attachment 51551

View attachment 51552

View attachment 51553

View attachment 51554

View attachment 51555

View attachment 51556

View attachment 51557

View attachment 51558

View attachment 51559

View attachment 51560

View attachment 51561

View attachment 51562

View attachment 51563

View attachment 51564

View attachment 51568

Click to expand...
i am present
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
I am unsure of what you are referring to when you allege that the court has not been following court procedure. I ask that you clarify this within 24 hours and familiarize yourself with rule 1.2, if applicable, while doing so.

As for the rejection of the motion to dismiss, there is sufficient standing for the plaintiff to continue this case. The plaintiff may pursue this case for the fact that an illegal act has damaged them to the degree that they are requesting damages. This is regardless of the inability of the Department of Homeland Security to collect the blood splatters, though the point raised by the defense in the motion will be taken into consideration in the verdict.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, as requested by the court the Defendant will hereby clarify their request. The Defendant did not mean to allege that the court has not been following court procedure, and is aware of Rule 1.2 and the presiding judge's freedom to apply the court rules at their decision. The Defendant was referring to the section of the Court Rules and Procedures titled "Court Proceedings" which gives a general guide on how the courts can be expected to operate. As an Answer to Complaint, an Opening Statement by the Plaintiff and an Opening Statement by the Defendant have not yet been presented to the court, and the case is currently moving into Witness Testimony & Cross-Examination, it seemed to the Defendant that the court has decided to use a different order of events for this case than is described in this section of the Court Rules and Procedures. The Defendant simply meant to request clarification from the court on their planned order of events from here on out for these proceedings to ensure their new counsel is able to properly prepare for the further proceedings of this case.
 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, as requested by the court the Defendant will hereby clarify their request. The Defendant did not mean to allege that the court has not been following court procedure, and is aware of Rule 1.2 and the presiding judge's freedom to apply the court rules at their decision. The Defendant was referring to the section of the Court Rules and Procedures titled "Court Proceedings" which gives a general guide on how the courts can be expected to operate. As an Answer to Complaint, an Opening Statement by the Plaintiff and an Opening Statement by the Defendant have not yet been presented to the court, and the case is currently moving into Witness Testimony & Cross-Examination, it seemed to the Defendant that the court has decided to use a different order of events for this case than is described in this section of the Court Rules and Procedures. The Defendant simply meant to request clarification from the court on their planned order of events from here on out for these proceedings to ensure their new counsel is able to properly prepare for the further proceedings of this case.
Click to expand...
The witnesses will be summoned and allow themselves to be familiarized with the case during opening statements. We will then do witness testimony and closing statements.

Plaintiff, please present your opening statement within 72 hours. Following this, defense has 72 hours to present theirs.
 

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
This case is about an unlawful and violent intrusion that escalated into a sustained campaign of harassment, destruction, and complete disregard for the rule of law in Redmont. The Plaintiff, a hardworking farmer, seeks justice for the Defendant’s unprovoked and repeated acts of aggression, which caused severe disruptions to his livelihood.

On January 19, 2025, the Defendant trespassed onto the Plaintiff’s rented farm, Wl-f086, under the false pretense of being “friends with the owner.” When confronted with the truth—that the Plaintiff was the rightful tenant—the Defendant did not simply leave. Instead, the Defendant brandished a firearm and, without provocation, fatally shot the Plaintiff. But the violence did not stop there. Over the next several hours, the Defendant continued to target and murder the Plaintiff, inflicting ongoing harm and chaos upon his farm.

The evidence will show that the Defendant’s reckless actions caused not only direct harm to the Plaintiff, but also economic damage that crippled his agricultural operations. Due to the repeated attacks, the Plaintiff’s farm became littered with forensic evidence, rendering it unusable for days. The Plaintiff and their employees were unable to harvest crops, resulting in significant financial losses.

Your Honor, this was not an accident. This was not self-defense. This was a blatant disregard for Redmont law, property rights, and basic human decency. The Plaintiff’s legal counsel will present clear and undeniable proof of the Defendant’s wrongful actions, and at the conclusion of this trial, we ask that you hold the Defendant accountable by granting the relief that the Plaintiff rightfully deserves.

Thank you.

 
The defense has 72 hours to present their opening statement.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the Plaintiff’s opening statement was full of claims of alleged misdeeds that the Defendant has allegedly committed. But how many of these alleged misdeeds have any evidence supporting them?

The Plaintiff first alleges that the Defendant has trespassed onto a particular property, namely Wl-f086, however there is no evidence whatsoever supporting this claim. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has spent a long amount of time repeatedly committing acts of aggression over “several hours”. Your Honor, surely if someone is standing on your property for hours in a row, it would not be too difficult to take a single picture proving such a fact. It’s notable that this is also not one of the Claims for Relief specified in the Plaintiff’s case filing.

The Plaintiff next claims that the Defendant “brandished” a firearm and fatally shot the plaintiff. It is clear that there is no evidence at all that the Defendant brandished a firearm. P-003, P-004, P-005 and P-006 do show evidence of ForeverShadow1 shooting at and murdering someone, however, it is unclear who is being shot at and murdered. It could be the plaintiff, but it could just as well be any other player. Furthermore it is completely unclear where any of this fighting happened, as well as what Plaintiff’s own share in these alleged brawls was, if Plaintiff was involved at all. Plaintiff claims that this fighting happened on the Wl-f086 plot, but there is absolutely no proof of that.

Lastly, the Plaintiff’s most important claim is that the Plaintiff’s agricultural operations were “crippled” causing large economic damages. This is allegedly due to forensic evidence caused by the Defendant’s actions. Once again, there is no proof at all of any such things. There is not a single picture of even one piece of forensic evidence on the Defendant’s rented plot. In their first claim for relief, the Plaintiff claims that there were “blood splatters” (which are a type of forensic evidence) all over the farm for 3 days. How is it possible that if for 3 days, upon which the Plaintiff allegedly tried to use their farm for 11.6 hours, the entire plot was covered in blood spatters, there is not a single piece of evidence supporting this?

Your Honor, the Plaintiff has made grand claims using emotionally charged text, however none of them are properly supported by evidence whatsoever. The Defendant is being accused of crippling a farming operation, which has allegedly resulted in thousands of dollars of damages, based on nothing but the Plaintiff’s word. The Defendant asks that the court does not go along with any of these baseless claims, and upholds justice. Thank you.

 
@Meneer_Lolo and Vlekje2012, you have already been summoned, please confirm you are present within 48 hours.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
@Meneer_Lolo and Vlekje2012, you have already been summoned, please confirm you are present within 48 hours.
Click to expand...

Your honor,
The Plaintiff's legal counsel would like to retract Vlekje2012 as a witness, as they are on a Leave of Absence (LOA) and are unable to testify. Vlekje2012 also did not submit a reply to the original summons.
 
Noted, I will be giving a warning to Vlekje2012 for failure to appear.
 
Pepecuu said:

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

View attachment 51551

View attachment 51552

View attachment 51553

View attachment 51554

View attachment 51555

View attachment 51556

View attachment 51557

View attachment 51558

View attachment 51559

View attachment 51560

View attachment 51561

View attachment 51562

View attachment 51563

View attachment 51564

View attachment 51568

Click to expand...
im present
 
We will begin witness testimony at this time. Plaintiff, you have 48 hours to ask any questions. Immediately following this the witness will have 48 hours to answer, and the plaintiff will have 24 hours (I am willing to extend this if requested) to ask follow-up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top