Lawsuit: In Session YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76

[Franciscus]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

YeetGlazer (represented by MZ Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. PARTIES​

1. YeetGlazer (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS​

(Note: Except where stated otherwise, all times and dates in these facts are in Eastern Daylight Time, which is UTC-4.)

1. YeetGlazer is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. On 24 July 2025, YeetGlazer owned several plots, including but not limited to:
   1. Plot c477
   2. Plot i025
   3. Plot rh017
   4. Plot r018
   5. Plot r073
   6. Plot rh047
   7. Plot r054
   8. Plot c343
3. The plots enumerated in Fact No. 2(1-8) (collectively, the “Plots”) were reported in eviction reports (the “Reports”) by Department of Construction and Transport (“DCT”) Employee(s) for “inactivity” (see: Exhibit P-001).
4. In these Reports, the DCT stated that, to remedy the situation, the Plaintiff would “have seven days to meet the minimum 6-hour playtime requirement” and that, if the Plaintiff were “unable to meet this due to valid reasons, [the Plaintiff] may request a deferral via the deferral request (see: Exhibit P-001).
5. The Reports were made on July 24, 2025, between 11:39 A.M. and 11:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight time.
6. The Reports contained an “eviction date” of July 31, 2025.
7. DCT employee Dearev, in the threads containing the Reports, stated that the Government had been set as owner of the properties and that an auction would be required (see: Exhibit P-002).
8. Dearev issued these notices that the government had been set as owner at or before 2:42 P.M. on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 (see: Exhibit P-001, Exhibit P-002).
9. On July 30, 2025, YeetGlazer opened a ticket with the DCT on the Discord in order to contest his eviction, as he had gotten his playtime above 6 hours (see: Exhibit P-002).
10. After he opened the ticket, YeetGlazer was told that the plots had already been evicted (see: Exhibit P-002).
11. YeetGlazer told the DCT that it had not yet been seven days, and asked for his plots to be returned to him as he met the playtime requirement (see: Exhibit P-002).
12. After this, xEndeavour, the Secretary in charge of the DCT, stated that the plots had been evicted on July 31 and did not return the plots to YeetGlazer (see: Exhibit P-002).
13. Section 4(1) of the Property Standards Act states that the DCT “shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.”
14. To establish regulations of the transfer of plots sold at eviction auction, the Department of Construction and Transportation has created an “Evictions Policy”, which is available on the forums (see: Exhibit P-003).
15. According to the Evictions Policy, “Department employees and staff may process an eviction at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone” (see: Exhibit P-003).
16. Dearev, a department employee, himself evicted the plot, stating in the discord ticket that “I evicted him” (see: Exhibit P-002; see also Exhibit P-007).
17. Dearev lives in Brazil (see: Exhibit P-004).
18. In Brazil, the main timezone is UTC-3. Only 0.0016% of the people in Brazil live East of this timezone (such as in UTC-2; see: Exhibit P-005).
19. Dearev lives in a place where the timezone is not ahead of UTC-3 (see: Exhibits P-004, P-005, P-006).
20. At the time that Dearev evicted YeetGlazer from YeetGlazer’s Plots, it was not later than 4:00 P.M. on July 30 in Dearev’s timezone.
21. At the time that YeetGlazer opened the DCT ticket regarding the Reports, it was not later than 11:10 P.M. on July 30 in Dearev’s timezone.
22. Dearev processed the eviction of YeetGlazer from YeetGlazer’s Plots before 31 July, based on Dearev’s own timezone.
23. Yeetglazer is a member of the Galactic Empire of Redmont and has served in the Congress as a member of that political party (see: Exhibit P-008).
24. Dearev has previously described the Galactic Empire of Redmont as a “paramilitary extremist group” (see: Exhibit P-009).
25. Dearev, on behalf of GlobalCenter, had previously tried to purchase plot c343, but this attempt was refused by the Plaintiff (see: Exhibit P-010).
26. After evicting Plot r054, the Commonwealth swiftly auctioned and sold it to a third party (see: Exhibits P-001 and Exhibit P-011).
27. As a result of the evictions, the Plaintiff still lacks access to the Plots at the time of filing.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Violations of Constitutional Right Against Unreasonable Seizure​

The Defendant, through its Department of Construction and Transport (DCT) agency (and its agent Dearev), unlawfully seized the Plaintiff’s property in advance of the authorized date, in direct contravention of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Section 32(15) of the Commonwealth of Redmont’s Constitution guarantees that “[e]very citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. By evicting the Plaintiff’s plots on July 30, 2025 – before the eviction date of July 31 – the DCT effected an unreasonable and premature seizure of private property. The DCT’s own eviction procedures must respect constitutional protections against unjust takings. Indeed, current DCT Secretary xEndeavour has previously written (under penalty of perjury, no less) in FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1 that the standard eviction process (notice followed by eviction on or after the stated date) exists to ensure that “players are protected from unreasonable seizure in line with their constitutional right”.

Evicting the Plaintiff even one day early violated this fundamental right without due cause. The seizure was unwarranted, lacking any court order or statutory authority to bypass the seven-day grace period. As such, the Commonwealth’s actions constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights, mirroring the kind of unwarranted governmental taking explicitly prohibited by the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution’s Section 32(15). The Plaintiff was entitled to be free from such an early confiscation of his plots, and this Court should declare that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to an unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s property.

2. Violations of Constitutional Duty of Care​

In addition to straightforward constitutional violation of unreasonable seizure, the Complaint asserts the Commonwealth breached its duty of care to citizens. Redmont law recognizes that executive agencies owe a duty to act within the bounds of their constitutional and statutory obligations. As the Federal Court held in smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth [2024] FCR 103, “Every department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations.” And, as the ruling in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29 succinctly notes, when a duty of care "is not upheld, it is considered a breach, and the party who is obliged to uphold the duty can be liable for damages".

This duty required DCT officials to conduct evictions lawfully and honor citizens’ rights (including property and due process rights) during enforcement of government policies. By evicting the Plaintiff prior to the permissible date, the Defendant breached this duty and violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional guarantees. Namely: the early eviction directly infringed the Plaintiff’s property rights and expectation of due process, evidencing a disregard for constitutional limits. The Defendant’s failure to prevent this premature action – and failure to remedy it even after the Plaintiff’s ticket was timely filed – reflects a broader neglect of the duty of fairness and justice owed to citizens. The Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens were not met.

Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for breaching its constitutional duty of care, and the Plaintiff is entitled to relief for this violation.

3. Violations of Statutory Duty of Care​

Independently of constitutional mandates, the Defendant had a statutory and policy-based duty of care to follow the law and its own established procedures governing evictions. As noted in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, “all laws set out by Congress can impose a duty” on the Commonwealth. When an agency fails to adhere to a legal standard, it breaches this duty, and the party who is obliged to uphold the duty can be held liable.

The authority behind DCT’s Evictions Policy is Property Standards Act 4(1), which states that “[t]he Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node”. This law allows the DCT to create a police regarding evictions, and imposes a very simple duty on the DCT: evictions carried out must be in accordance “in accordance with these laws and regulations”. In other words, when the DCT makes an evictions policy, the DCT itself must follow it.

The DCT’s evictions policy states that “Department employees and staff may process an eviction at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone.”. This policy created a clear rule to follow: do not evict before the eviction date as determined by the employee’s local time. The agent Dearev’s eviction of the Plaintiff’s plots on July 30 violated that rule, as it was still July 30 in Dearev’s Brazilian timezone when he processed the eviction. By acting before “on or after the eviction date,” the DCT agent failed to meet the minimum standard of care set by policy and guaranteed under the law..

Again, returning to RaiTheGuy v. Dept. of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, the Court elaborated that if a duty is created by statute “failing to follow the statute necessarily implies a breach, which is consistent with the common law” (emphasis mine). Here, the statutory duty (rooted in the Evictions Policy and the Property Standards Act empowering that policy) was plainly breached. This breach was not a mere technicality – it directly caused the unjust loss of Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff had successfully remedied his inactivity within the allowed period, meaning the DCT was obligated to refrain from evicting him on July 30. Its failure to perform that duty of care is negligence per se in light of this precedent. Consequently, the Commonwealth is answerable for the damages flowing from this breach of its statutory duty to act in accordance with laws and DCT regulations when executing evictions.

4. Loss of Enjoyment​

The unlawful eviction caused the Plaintiff significant loss of enjoyment, a harm for which Redmont law allows recovery. Under the Legal Damages Act, “Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont” is a recognized form of consequential damage – defined as situations where an “injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm”.

Here, the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the game and community life in Redmont was severely diminished by the eviction. The Plaintiff could no longer access or use several plots of land that he lawfully owned, including his residence and/or business plots, depriving him of the fruits of his in-game labor and investments. This sudden and premature ouster on July 30 caused distress and frustration: the Plaintiff was forced to spend time fighting to regain his own property rather than participating in the normal activities of Redmont. The eviction and its aftermath prevented the Plaintiff from building upon, trading, or otherwise enjoying his hard-earned plots during that period.

The Plaintiff here suffered a palpable loss of enjoyment. Even after meeting the activity requirement to keep his property, the Plaintiff was subject to the distress of seeing his property taken regardless, and the dread of knowing that the Commonwealth would do everything in its power to try to keep these properties from him (extending the Plaintiff's loss of enjoyment indefinitely) even after he did nothing wrong. The Legal Damages Act explicitly permits recovery for such intangible harms, provided they are shown by evidence or a “reasonable person” standard. The Plaintiff will testify (and can present witnesses) to how this incident made his experience of Redmont miserable during the relevant time – he was publicly humiliated, lost access to his plots, and feared losing them permanently. This Court should award consequential damages for loss of enjoyment to compensate the Plaintiff for the very real, if non-monetary, harm inflicted by the Defendant’s wrongful and illegal acts.

5. Humiliation​

The manner in which the eviction was conducted also inflicted humiliation upon the Plaintiff, warranting damages. Legal Damages Act §7(1) explicitly includes “Humiliation” as a form of consequential damage, defined as situations “in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.”

The Defendant’s actions and subsequent handling of the matter caused the Plaintiff to suffer disgrace and embarrassment in the community. Being evicted for “inactivity” suggests to onlookers that the Plaintiff neglected his holdings; doing so a day early (and then having officials falsely claim the eviction was proper) made the Plaintiff appear as if he was wrong when in fact he had complied with the rules. The Plaintiff raised his compliance in the DCT’s public Discord ticket (see: Evidence P-002), only to be met with a denial and effectively be called mistaken or untruthful about the timing. This dismissal in a DCT ticket, especially by a high-ranking official such as xEndeavour, would reasonably make the Plaintiff feel belittled and powerless.

Moreover, the Plaintiff’s eviction notices were publicly posted on the forums (as is standard), and the subsequent record shows the Government taking ownership of his plots prematurely. To any community members unaware of the behind-the-scenes timezone trickery, it may have looked as though the Plaintiff failed to log sufficient hours and lost his property accordingly – a potentially humiliating stigma for an active citizen. In truth, the Plaintiff had done everything required, yet he had to endure public loss of his property and effectively beg for its return.

The distress caused from this ordeal is actionable. Prior cases underscore that when the government violates a citizen’s rights, reputational harm and humiliation are not just ancillary effects but compensable damages. The Plaintiff’s standing in the community and his personal dignity were affronted by the implication that he was at fault and by the blatant unfairness of the situation. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks consequential damages for humiliation, in an amount the Court deems just, to account for the disgrace and loss of face he suffered due to the Defendant’s unlawful eviction and false narrative surrounding it.

6. Fraud​

The Defendant, through its agents, engaged in fraudulent conduct by misrepresenting the date and legality of the eviction in an attempt to conceal their wrongdoing. After the Plaintiff discovered the premature eviction, the DCT Secretary (xEndeavour) falsely asserted that “properties were evicted on 31 jul before [the Plaintiff] had enough playtime”, despite the reality that the eviction occurred on July 30 in Dearev's timezone and acknowledging that "policy is that the eviction date is actioned at any time in the actioning member’s timezone". This statement was a knowing falsehood regarding a material fact – the timing of the government’s seizure – and it was made to dissuade the Plaintiff from seeking return of his property. Under the Criminal Code Act, the crime of Fraud is defined as “knowingly or recklessly misrepresent[ing] or omit[ing] a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm”.

The misrepresentation by the DCT Secretary as to Dearev’s time zone, and the total omission by Dearev regarding his time zone in the Discord Ticket to correct xEndeavour's false statement, separately and together constitute intentional and material misrepresentation and omission: whether the eviction occurred before or after the authorized date determines its legality. The Commonwealth intended the Plaintiff to rely on this false claim (i.e. to believe the eviction was rightful and drop his challenge). The Plaintiff, in an attempt to regain control over this illegally seized plot, relied on the Commonwealth’s misrepresentations, and then made several bids in vain. In the end, the Commonwealth invalidated the Plaintiff’s bids for the property on tenuous grounds and instead sold the property to a third-party, causing actual damages to the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff will forever be barred from enjoying that property. because the Commonwealth lied to the Plaintiff about the appropriateness of its evictions.

The deceit thus proximately caused the Plaintiff additional damages (in the form of litigation costs, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment in a property now owned by a third party). As Criminal Code Act provisions make clear that “crimes may be used to seek damages” in a civil claim, the Plaintiff seeks relief in this Court for the damages caused by the Commonwealth’s misrepresentations.

In sum, the Defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation violated the law and directly injured the Plaintiff, warranting further compensatory and punitive damages.

7. Corruption​

The Plaintiff posits that premature eviction also amounts to Corruption as defined by Redmont’s criminal code. A government official commits corruption, under Criminal Code Act Part II, Section 1(a), by “us[ing] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage to the government (and possibly to any third parties awaiting the land’s auction) at the expense of the Plaintiff’s rights. This act was wholly inconsistent with the official duty of DCT staff to follow the Evictions Policy and uphold the law.

There are several ways in which these actions may have gained an unfair advantage for Dearev or for some other individual. It is established in the facts that Dearev has shown extreme hostility towards the GER, in which Dearev has branded the GER a “paramilitary extremist group”. It is also well-established that YeetGlazer is among the GER’s most public-facing members, having served in the Congress. It would be to Dearev’s advantage to see the GER’s most public-facing member crushed under the weight of the DCT’s evictions power. And Dearev had indeed previously expressed an interest in obtaining one of the very same plots he evicted: c343; evicting this plot would give Dearev an unfair advantage relative to the status quo ante in Dearev's ability to purchase this plot.

Even if the motive for the early eviction were for more mundane things, such as convenience or haste, the effect was to prefer the government’s administrative timeline over the citizen’s property rights – a classic abuse of power. In the absence of any valid reason to violate the policy, one must conclude the official acted ultra vires and for an improper purpose.

Such conduct meets the statutory criteria for corruption. In this case, the DCT’s flouting of the rules indicates bad faith or improper influence (for instance, perhaps there may have been an unofficial directive to clear plots early, or perhaps just personal impatience). The Plaintiff alleges that this wrongful eviction was not a mere mistake but a deliberate act inconsistent with lawful duty – essentially, a corrupt act. Using this Criminal Code violation as a basis for civil liability, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Commonwealth accountable for the corrupt practices of its agent. The claim of corruption underscores the egregious nature of the Defendant’s conduct and further justifies an award of punitive damages to deter such abuses of public office.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff YeetGlazer respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following relief:

1. Declaratory Judgement: The Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this court that the DCT’s eviction of the Plaintiff’s plots was unlawful, unconstitutional, and void ab initio. The Plaintiff asks this Court to explicitly rule that the eviction executed on July 30, 2025 violated the Evictions Policy and the Plaintiff’s rights, and therefore had no legal effect. Such a declaratory judgment will clarify the parties’ rights and ensure the record reflects that the Government’s actions were illegal.
2. Injunctive Relief / Return of Property: The Plaintiff asks this Court to issue an order requiring the Commonwealth to return ownership of all wrongly-evicted plots to the Plaintiff immediately. Because the eviction was wrongful, the appropriate remedy is to restore the status quo ante by reinstating the Plaintiff as the rightful owner of each plot. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction compelling the Defendant to reverse any transfer of ownership or auction process initiated for his properties. This Court’s equitable powers permit it to undo the effects of the illegal eviction – just as wrongfully dispossessed tenants or owners are entitled to recover possession of their property.
3. Compensatory Damages: The Plaintiff asks for an award of compensatory damages in an amount to fully compensate the Plaintiff for all quantifiable losses suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions. This includes the value of any property or items lost due to the eviction, any lost profits or income from the plots during the period of wrongful possession, and any other monetary losses the Plaintiff can prove.
4. Consequential Damages: The Plaintiff asks for an award of consequential damages for the non-economic injuries inflicted, specifically including Loss of Enjoyment and Humiliation suffered by the Plaintiff. As detailed in Claims for Relief 4 and 5, the Plaintiff endured a diminished ability to enjoy the Redmont community and personal mortification as a result of the Defendant’s conduct. The Legal Damages Act expressly recognizes these intangible harms as compensable. These damages, while not easily reduced to a number, are capped by law except in cases when punitive damages are sought (c.f. Legal Damages Act §7(2)(b)). As the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in this case, and consequential damages are therefore not capped, the Plaintiff asks that the Court award $150,000 in humiliation damages and $150,000 in loss of enjoyment damages.
5. Punitive Damages: The Defendant’s actions were not mere negligence but willful and egregious violations of law – evincing reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and for the rule of law. Punitive damages are warranted, per Legal Damages Act §5(1)(a), “to punish [a defendant] for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.”
   
   The Commonwealth’s conduct in this case has been egregious and outrageous. Here, the Commonwealth (acting through DCT officials) engaged in a gross abuse of power by illegally evicting plots, then persisted in dishonesty to cover it up even when contested, and showed deep contempt for the Plaintiff throughout the whole process. This kind of conduct strikes at the heart of public trust in government and must be strongly dissuaded.
   
   How should the Commonwealth be dissuaded? Treble damages serve as a strong deterrent to future wrongful conduct and are called for in these heinous and outrageous actions by the Defendants; this Court has granted them in the past, such as in lucaaasserole v Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50. But, for some violations (such as abstract violations of rights), treble damages may be difficult to calculate, and further specification for a calculation of punitive damages is necessary. And, for damages that occurred as the result of criminal activities, the Federal Court has found it permissible for Plaintiffs to seek punitive damages equal to the amount of fines that would be collected in a criminal proceding (c.f. MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27, Section III(2)(E), par. 6).
   
   As such, the Plaintiff prays for Punitive Damages as follows:
   1. $280,000 in punitive damages for unreasonable seizure, in direct violation of the Plaintiff’s express constitutional rights against the same, equivalent to $35,000 for each of the 8 Plots unlawfully seized;
   2. $280,000 in punitive damages for violations of Constitutional Duty of Care, as laid out in the second Claim for Relief, equivalent to $35,000 for each of the 8 Plots unlawfully seized;
   3. $280,000 in punitive damages for violations of Statutory Duty of Care, as laid out in the third Claim for Relief, equivalent to $35,000 for each of the 8 Plots unlawfully seized;
   4. $300,000 in punitive damages for loss of enjoyment: treble damages resulting from the Commonwealth’s actions described in this Complaint and in this Case,;
   5. $300,000 in punitive damages for humiliation: treble damages resulting from the Commonwealth’s actions described in this Complaint and in this Case;
   6. $200,000 in punitive damages for Corruption, equivalent to the maximum monetary penalty for eight charges of Corruption (one for each plot illegally seized) as laid out under the Criminal Code Act;
   7. $80,000 in punitive damages for Fraud, equivalent to the maximum monetary penalty for eight charges of Fraud (one for each plot illegally seized) as laid out under the Criminal Code Act.
6. Legal Fees: An award of the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, as mandated by the Legal Damages Act. Section 9(1)(c) of the Act provides that “Legal fees shall be awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party in a case at a rate of the greater of $6,000 or 30% of the total value of the case.”
   
   The Plaintiff prays for an award of legal fees equal to 30% of the total monetary relief obtained (or sought, if the Defendant prevails on some claims) in accordance with this provision.Given the complexity of this case and the egregious nature of the Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff’s counsel has and will have expended significant time and resources to vindicate the Plaintiff’s rights. Thirty percent of the recovery is a fair and statutorily-supported measure of legal fees, and should be ordered against the Defendant if it is found liable. This not only compensates the Plaintiff’s costs but also encourages capable advocacy in cases where citizens challenge governmental abuse.

By submitting this complaint, I affirm I understand the penalties for perjury and that this statement is truthful to the best of my knowledge.

DATED: This 1st day of August, 2025

V. WITNESSES​

1. Dearev
2. xEndeavour
3. YeetGlazer
4. SirDogeington
5. Lawanoesepr
6. MysticPhunky

VI. EXHIBITS​

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

1. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/r054-jul-31-2025.29049/
2. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c477-jul-31-2025.29059/
3. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/i025-jul-31-2025.29057/
4. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/rh017-jul-31-2025.29056/
5. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/r018-jul-31-2025.29053/
6. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/r073-jul-31-2025.29051/
7. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/rh047-jul-31-2025.29050/
8. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c343-jul-31-2025.29048/

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

See attached PDF “Exhibit P-002”.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Evictions Policy

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004

Attached PDF "Dearev Wiki Page"

Spoiler: Exhibit P-005

See attached PDF “Exhibit P-005”

Spoiler: Exhibit P-006

Spoiler: Exhibit P-007

Spoiler: Exhibit P-008

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-may-2025.25986/post-102826

Spoiler: Exhibit P-009

Spoiler: Exhibit P-010

Spoiler: Exhibit P-011

VII. PROOF OF RETAINER​

Spoiler: Proof of retainer

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honor,

After seizing the properties from the Plaintiff, the Commonwealth has hurried to sell off several seized properties at auction. As a sale at auction may make recovery of a property by the Plaintiff difficult, and the loss of a property would deny the Plaintiff the ability to enjoy that property going forward, the Commonwealth's actions pose an immediate threat of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff.

For this reason, the Plaintiff asks that this court immediately freeze any auctions, sales, transfers, or any other transactions of the following properties for the duration of this case:

1. Plot c477
2. Plot i025
3. Plot rh017
4. Plot r018
5. Plot r073
6. Plot rh047
7. Plot r054
8. Plot c343

Should any plots be sold or transferred away from the government after 30 July and prior to a ruling on this injunction, the Plaintiff asks that the Court order that the sale or transfer be immediately unwound in its entirety and the property be held in escrow for the duration of this case.

 

[JunkCereal]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General, @gribble19, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76.

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.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Court agrees, given the evidence currently presented, that not granting the emergency injunction would cause harm to Plaintiff. Since this injunction is time sensitive, the Motion for Emergency Injunction is granted.

It is ordered that the Commonwealth keep possession of the following plots for the duration of this trial:

1. Plot c477
2. Plot i025
3. Plot rh017
4. Plot r018
5. Plot r073
6. Plot rh047
7. Plot r054
8. Plot c343

When the Commonwealth appears before the Court, they will be allowed to file a brief arguing against the Emergency Injunction if they deem it necessary.

 

[End]

Your honour, I will be representing the commonwealth moving forward until otherwise provided.

 

[ToadKing]

Your honour, I will be representing the commonwealth moving forward until otherwise provided.

Objection

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

Your Honour, the Plaintiff objects to Secretary xEndeavour's attempt to represent the Commonwealth in this matter.

In the ongoing case of Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78, the Judge stated:

Let it be further clarified that the Executive Standards Act gives the Department of Justice the power to "(a) Defending the national legal interest."

It does not matter if a department was named as the main defendant, they are apart of the national government and as such the DoJ is empowered to defend them.

Furthermore, Secretary xEndeavour, to the Plaintiff's knowledge, is not a member of the DOJ; they are not a Prosecutor (P-012).

Spoiler: P-012

The screenshot provided shows only a temporary authorisation from the President stating "i hereby temporarily authorise xEndeavour to represent his department in court". This purported authorisation:
1. Is explicitly temporary in nature
2. Cannot override statutory requirements for legal representation

No proper authorisation exists for a non-DOJ Secretary to represent the commonwealth in court. The Executive Standards Act specifically vests the power to "defend the national legal interest" in the Department of Justice, not in individual Cabinet Secretaries.

This situation is directly analogous to Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 13, where the case was delayed when the Attorney General resigned. In that case, the Deputy Attorney General requested: "that this case be put on hold until a new Attorney General can be chosen." The Supreme Court ultimately required proper prosecutorial representation before proceeding.

To allow this would set a dangerous precedent, permitting the President to bypass the DOJ's legislated role and allow any person to represent the government in court through executive fiat.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court reject Secretary xEndeavour's attempt to represent the Commonwealth and either:
1. Require proper DOJ representation as previously ordered by this Court; or
2. Delay proceedings until a qualified prosecutor can be assigned or a new Attorney General appointed.

The court should note that there are at least 3 alternative Prosecutors currently employed by the DOJ, who could take over this case. (P-013)

Spoiler: P-013

 

[JunkCereal]

@End, the objection raises significant concerns whether there is legal authority for what the executive branch is attempting to do in these two cases. Though the Court understands the situation the Commonwealth is currently in, this situation is not a reason to act in ways contrary to law. To extend you courtesy, the Court will allow you 48 hours to provide a brief demonstrating:
1. the legal justification for your actions;
2. that the Department of Justice is incapacitated to an extent demanding such actions; and
3. a reason why the trial can't be delayed until the problem with the DOJ is resolved.

If you need an extension for said brief, please request an extension before the deadline. Failure to submit this brief will prevent you from representing the Commonwealth in this case.

 

[End]

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's objection to my representation of the Commonwealth is against the fundamental principles of natural justice - the government has the right to be heard and to choose its representation. Not only that, but it completely undermines Presidential executive authority.

The Plaintiff is trying to argue that only the Department of Justice has the legal authority to represent the Commonwealth in court due to the Department of Justice being charged with the legal defence of the Commonwealth. There are a few issues with this argument:

Executive Power

s28 of the Constitution provides that Cabinet is a group of advisers to the President, consisting of Executive Officers, who collectively guide government decision-making and policy. It expressly states that Cabinet draws its executive authority through delegated Presidential executive authority.
A ruling in favour of this objection would effectively hold that the Dept. Justice can override the constitutional authority of the President to delegate representation in legal matters. The Executive Standards Act serves to provide statutory duties and responsibilities to Departments, but it cannot displace or limit the President’s executive powers as set out in the Constitution.

However, Let us accept, for argument's sake, the notion that the Dept. Justice is the only one who can represent the Commonwealth across the Executive:

Dept. Construction and Transport
The Department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has routinely contracted or bought infrastructure from outside the Department, some even at the President's direction.

Dept. Health
The Department is charged with the maintenance and upkeep of the national health system.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has a policy which allows for private healthcare.

Dept. Education
The Department is charged with maintaining a historical national archives to document and preserve national history.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department regularly contracts its work out to players external to the department.

Dept. Justice
The idea that the Department of Justice must be the only entity permitted to represent the Commonwealth, regardless of circumstance and presidential authorisation is inconsistent with both practice and principle.

Just as no department exclusively executes the duties it is responsible for, the Department of Justice is not different - especially when:

1. The President has authorised the representation of their executive;
2. The Attorney General is unavailable; and
3. The person delegated is a suitable and intimately aware of the functions of the Department as a respondent.
4. The Department has a direct interest in defending its own actions.
5. It would be unreasonable and unjust to bar the Secretary, especially one with judicial experience, from defending the Department at the request of the President.

Precedent
This is not the same situation as Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 13. That matter involved a prosecutorial action that could not proceed without a lawfully designated prosecutor. This case concerns a civil matter, and the comparisons do not compare to criminal prosecution.

No precedent prohibits Cabinet Secretaries from appearing in court when their own departments are the subject of litigation. If the Plaintiff’s argument were to be accepted, it would mean that Cabinet departments are legally powerless to defend their conduct. In fact, the ruling that the President cannot choose the Executive's representation may be against [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal which held that the respondent was not provided with the opportunity to represent themselves in a civil case (such as in this case, where the President is being denied the same on behalf of the Commonwealth).

Conclusion
The Plaintiff’s objection is a narrow and incorrect interpretation of the Executive Standards Act. The President’s authorisation is valid. The representation of a Department in a civil suit concerning its own conduct is within reason. The delegated representative is qualified.

I am qualified;

I am authourised; and

I am the most logical representative, noting I was the decision maker.

I respectfully submit that you deny the objection.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Legal Fees: An award of the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, as mandated by the Legal Damages Act. Section 9(1)(c) of the Act provides that “Legal fees shall be awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party in a case at a rate of the greater of $6,000 or 30% of the total value of the case.”

Upon re-reading the complaint, I realize that I had erroneously included language that has since been repealed and replaced. I apologize to the court for this drafting error.

I ask to strike the second sentence of the paragraph and insert the following in its place:

Section 9(1)(c) of the Act provides that "In cases that reach a verdict, legal fees are awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party at a rate of 30% of the total value of the case except in situations outlined in § 9.(3)." The exceptions allow for a judge to diminish legal fees in cases of misconduct and incompetence of counsel, but specify that "n cases that reach a verdict, legal fees must not be awarded at a rate less than 10% of the value of the case in any court" and that "n Federal and Supreme Court cases where legal fees are awarded, they must not be awarded at a rate of less than $6,000."