Lawsuit: In Session louq v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 68

[Zerasa]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


louq (quolnne Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 30, 2025, the Plaintiff took examinations on various legal subjects at the University under the Department of Education. After completing the contract law exam, the Plaintiff noticed a pattern where it was impossible to score above 80 percent on any exam, making it impossible to pass them. This pattern was verified by the Plaintiff on this and other exams, leading to the conclusion that the exam system was marking correct answers as wrong.

This information regarding the contract law exam was reported to the Department of Education, which provided a response from its employees. Subsequently, a review of the specified exam was conducted by Department staff. Following this review, it was determined that the exam was indeed faulty.

With the consent of the Department of Education staff and at the expressed request of the secretary, the Plaintiff checked the remaining examinations (administrative, constitutional, property), the cost to have one attempt at the exam was $75. This review was conducted by the Plaintiff at his own expense. The results of this review showed that the highest achievable score was 73.3 percent. Given that each individual question was checked and its answer verified as correct by the claimant, with specific sources cited, this information was submitted by the claimant to the Department of Education.

In the course of taking the faulty exams, the claimant spent his own money; he also spent his own money to conduct the review. Of this amount, $300 was reimbursed on August 30, 2025, by the (current at the time of filing this claim) Attorney General.

In the period between August 30, 2025, and September 4, 2025, the claimant periodically checked in with Department of Education employees regarding the progress of the review into the information they had provided and the possible subsequent correction of the errors identified in the exams.

Professor who created the exams told Plaintiff that exams were made a half year ago and hasn’t been audited since, so «the law in some areas have been drastically changed» © Matthew100x. The exams policy of Department of Education is to «conduct audits regularly, with each exam and guide being audited at least once a month».

Although Department of Education staff were welcoming and friendly throughout the review of the information provided by the claimant and were prepared to cover the incurred expenses («The DOE will happily cover any costs» © Eenza), for the entire period the claimant report was under review, no observable actions were taken to actually rectify the problem.

On September 7, 2025, the claimant noted that his complaint with the Department of Education had been closed. It was not stated whether an investigation had been conducted, nor were the results of any investigation or the decisions made as a result of it provided. No compensation, other than that mentioned above, has been paid.

I. PARTIES
1. louq - Plaintiff
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont - Defendant


II. FACTS
1. On August 30, 2025, louq initiates a report to the Department of Education regarding faulty law exams at the University run by Department of Education [p-001];
2. On August 30, 2025, the Department of Education staff provided a review of the contract law exam, following this review, it was determined that the exam was indeed faulty [p-010];
3. With the consent of the Department of Education staff and at the expressed ask of the secretary, the Plaintiff verified the administrative, constitutional, property law examinations at his own expense, the information about these examinations was submitted by the claimant to the Department of Education [p-001], [p-005], [p-006], [p-007], [p-008], [p-009];
4. In the course of taking the faulty exams, the claimant spent his own money, he also spent his own money to conduct the review around 6 times each exam;
5. Contract Legal Exam has been changed after louq’s reporting about the exam fault in the Department of Education [p-010];
6. Professor who created the exams told louq that exams were made a half year ago and hasn’t been audited since, so «the law in some areas have been drastically changed» © Matthew100x [p-002];
7. Department of Education staff was prepared to cover the incurred expenses («The DOE will happily cover any costs» © Eenza) [p-003];
8. On August 30, 2025, there was reimburse to louq by the (current at the time of filing this claim) Attorney General for only 300$ [p-011];
9. The Department of Education Secretary told louq «This ticket will just stay open till we are able to handle everything» © Eenza [p-004];
10. The Defendant created a discriminatory system by administering outdated exams that were impossible to pass based on current law [p-002];
11. On September 7, 2025, the claimant noted that his complaint with the Department of Education has been closed without any decision.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Department of Education is tasked with maintaining guides and exams as part of our regular duties. (EXAMS & GUIDE AUDIT POLICY - Written by Education Secretary AsexualDinosaur).
2. The (Department of Education) goal is to catch problems with exams and guides early, before they affect our citizens during exams, as well as to continuously ensure that exams are relevant, and changes are implemented. (EXAMS & GUIDE AUDIT POLICY - Written by Education Secretary AsexualDinosaur).
3. The duty of the Department of Education is to conduct audits regularly, with each exam and guide being audited at least once a month. (EXAMS & GUIDE AUDIT POLICY - Written by Education Secretary AsexualDinosaur).
4. A regular accuracy audit should be conducted over ALL exams over a period of a month. Professors will be tasked with the duty to ensure that the information between the available guides on the wiki, encapsulates the information required or needed in order to pass an exam. (EXAMS & GUIDE AUDIT POLICY - Written by Education Secretary AsexualDinosaur).
5. There is a payment per audit is $150 per question for accuracy audit, Plaintiffs are sure they performed Department’s responsibility in accordance with law with the approvement of The Secretary, so they deserved fair pay.
6. In accordance with the Executive Standards Act, section 14(1)(a), the Department of Education is charged with the following primary responsibilities: Advancing the knowledge, skills, and retention of the people of Redmont through arts and education initiatives, and furthering contributions to arts, academia, and culture.
7. In accordance with the Legal Damages Act, section 7(1)(a)(III), situations in which 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. As the Department of Education has failed their duty and therefore it has diminished Plaintiffs ability to specialize in the certain fields of law which wasn’t a case for the people passing these exams in the past.
8. The Defendant, through the actions and failures of its Department of Education, has violated the Plaintiffs constitutional right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination, as guaranteed by Section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. The system installed by the Defendant unfairly discriminated against the Plaintiffs based on their social status as current examination candidates, denying them the same benefit of the law (a fair opportunity to pass the exams and specialize in a field of law) that was afforded to citizens who took the exams in the past when the materials were accurate. The Defendant's failure to adhere to its own monthly audit policy was the direct cause of this discriminatory outcome.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. To fulfil their duty of accuracy in accordance with the Department’s policy;
2. To reimburse Plaintiff’s exams costs for the amount of 6 (times) * 4 (exams) * 75 (cost) = $1,800;
3. To compensate Plaintiffs for the amount of 15 (questions) * 150 (p. question) * 4 (exams) = $9,000 for the equivalent of the accuracy audits provided.
4. To pay Consequential Damages to the Plaintiffs for the amount of 12 (days) * 2000 (p. day) = $24,000 of the Plaintiffs inability to complete mandatory exams to specialize or achieve the attorney qualification.
5. To cover the legal fees to the qoulnne as the representative of the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,400 (30% of the total value of the case).

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: The 10th of September 2025

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of louq (represented by quolnne) v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 68

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.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

May it pleasure the court, I have arrived.

 

[dearev]

Your honor,

May it pleasure the court, I have arrived.

The commonwealth shall have 48 hours to present the answer to complaint.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

The Commonwealth requests a 7 hour extension to provide our answer.

Thank you.

 

[dearev]

Your honor,

The Commonwealth requests a 7 hour extension to provide our answer.

Thank you.

Granted.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Answer to Complaint

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

louq (quolnne Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm
2. Affirm; Deny that is what P-010 shows.
3. Deny that the Secretary had ‘consented’ or ‘asked’ for the plaintiff to review the exams; Affirm some exams did have errors; Deny that the listed evidence shows Secretary making the suggested comments.
4. Affirm
5. Affirm
6. Affirm that Matthew was the primarily author for most exams, Deny that they said they hadn’t been audited since. Affirm that some areas of law have changed.
7. Affirm that the DOE was willing to compensate expenses
8. Affirm the plaintiff was paid $300 to compensate for their tries on the Contracts Exam.
9. Affirm
10. Deny that this created a ‘discriminatory system’, Deny that P-002 Shows this.
11. Deny; The ticket is still open, it was never closed & the plaintiff is still added to the ticket.

II. DEFENCES
1. The plaintiff was offered reimbursement and was explicitly asked how much they wished to be compensated and ignored the Secretary. The Secretary had pinged them 9/4/2025 and asked the number of times they had taken the exam, as well as how much it would be- noting that the DOE was happy to cover costs as seen in P-003
2. The DOE was in the process of fixing these exams after they were made aware of the issue. 8/29/2025 the plaintiff had made their initial notice to the DOE about the contracts exam which was promptly resolved as seen in P-010.
3. The plaintiff was compensated $300 for this initial exam, for which they had suggested “pretty much covers my amount of times I’ve tried”
4. There’s no basis for the consequential damages for the ‘harm’, and the DOE has been making efforts to resolve the exams which the plaintiff in this case is aware of as seen in P-003.
5. As the DOE had offered to compensate the plaintiff already and they seemingly refused to provide insight as to the amount owed the prayer for relief for the exams is largely baseless and did not need to be made into a lawsuit- noting as well that one of the 4 exams had already been compensated for as well under the admission in Fact 8 as well seen in P-011. The plaintiff also had also opened the ticket and said they had taken the Contracts exam 3-4 times and was compensated for 4 exams ($75 (cost) * 4 (time taken) = $300, this being different than the suggested 6 times the plaintiff claims to have taken the exam in Prayer #2.
6. The plaintiff was not asked to do these audits, they were asked to mention if they ran into issues. While the DOE is in charge of maintaining the exams, it is not the fault of the DOE that the plaintiff chose to ‘audit’ exams.
7. A citizen viewing a department policy and taking it upon themselves to do the ‘role’ of the department does not suggest they should receive the pay for that role. The correct procedure would be to inform the department so that they perform the job themselves. If a citizen wishes to participate and get paid for doing that job, they could apply to the DOE to do the job themselves.
8. The Plaintiff could not have been ‘unfairly discriminated’ against simply for a fault in the exams. All exam takers during that run would have experienced the same exam.
9. Under MrFluffy2u94 v. Commonwealth explained that the closure of an exam does not violate the plaintiff’s 13th right as this closure affected all citizens at the time. The same is true of a faulty exam in the same way- while not ideal, the fault in an exam does not make an ‘unfair discrimination’ against the plaintiff.
10. As the DOE has already agreed and is in the process of fixing these exams, a judgement from the court to ‘fulfill the duty of accuracy’ is largely redundant. P-010 shows the first of the exams being fixed, and more on the way with the Administrative Law exam having been updated 9/3 and implemented by staff 9/10 - D-001 & D-002.
11. In 15fine v. wttn2c, the verdict highlights that the plaintiff has a responsibility to prevent harm caused to themselves, in this case it’s clear that the plaintiff intentionally caused the harm they’re seeking compensation for by taking it upon themselves to ‘audit’ the exams.
12. The plaintiff has not shown in what ways they had ‘[lost], or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm’, or how they were affected by not receiving these qualifications within this time.

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 12th day of September 2025

 

[dearev]

Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days, Discovery can be ended early if both parties agree.