Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Aventura [2026] FCR 44

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

Your honour,
The Council of Aventura recently passed the Act of Council - The Other Commission an Artist Act.
The campaign channel in the Aventura Discord server is the place where candidates are currently able to express themselves (P-001): by limiting its access to individuals who meet certain criteria through prior restraint, and imposing fines for those who violate said criteria, this Act infringes on citizens' Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Political Communication. Political speech is directly linked to the passage of time; speech prevented today cannot be restored through its allowance in the future.
As the Constitution is binding for Towns, and seeing as the infringement of a Constitutionally-protected freedom constitutes irreparable harm, and that the Act fails to meet the requirements imposed by the Stanley Standard (re: Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23), the Commonwealth asks the Court to order the Town of Aventura to refrain from enforcing the aforementioned Act until the conclusion of this case in accordance with Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Oakridge [2023] FCR 107, both of which reinforcing the idea that the Department of Justice is entrusted with ensuring Town bylaws are constitutional.

Spoiler: P-001

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

The Town of Aventura (cc: @Anthony_Org) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Aventura [2026] FCR 44.

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.

 

[Anthony_Org]

The Town of Aventura is present your honor

 

[Franciscus]

The Town of Aventura is present your honor

Please respond to the motion for an emergency injunction within the next 4 hours.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Please respond to the motion for an emergency injunction within the next 4 hours.

Your honor, can we get a 4 hour extension while we work on assigning an attorney and the response to the Emergency Injunction?

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor, can we get a 4 hour extension while we work on assigning an attorney and the response to the Emergency Injunction?

Granted. Response due 11:00 P.M., today, Eastern Daylight Time.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Granted. Response due 11:00 P.M., today, Eastern Daylight Time.

Your honor, I am officially assigning this case to @gribble19

 

[cheetahracer1]

OBJECTION! Aventura is not a real town.

 

[Franciscus]

OBJECTION! Aventura is not a real town.

Overruled.

You are found in contempt of court for this disruption and lack of decorum. You are sentenced to a fine of $1000 and shall be jailed for 10 minutes. These amounts are chosen in a way that reflects your conscious decision to interject and to deter further crime of this sort, while seeing this as your first such contempt offense.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests a further 19 hour extension for their response to the motion for emergency injunction. Due to the severe nature of the requested emergency injunction, and Defendant's desire to respond with the proper care necessary, the response is turning out rather detailed and lengthy. Defendant's counsel has been spending the past several hours working on a response to the motion for emergency injunction however more work is still required to properly finish up the response. It is currently past 12 AM for me personally and the requested extension would allow me to finish the rest of the response tomorrow. Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests a further 19 hour extension for their response to the motion for emergency injunction. Due to the severe nature of the requested emergency injunction, and Defendant's desire to respond with the proper care necessary, the response is turning out rather detailed and lengthy. Defendant's counsel has been spending the past several hours working on a response to the motion for emergency injunction however more work is still required to properly finish up the response. It is currently past 12 AM for me personally and the requested extension would allow me to finish the rest of the response tomorrow. Thank you.

Ok. I'm going to give an interim order tonight my time, but I will certainly allow response after. Extension granted.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERIM ORDER — EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff has pleaded that enforcement The Other Commission an Artist Act would cause constitutional injury through a restriction of the Freedom of Political Communication that the Charter enshrines. The Court, balancing alleged constitutional injury against the ability of the town to enforce a local bylaw, grants an emergency injunction as follows:

1. The Town of Aventura may not enforce The Other Commission an Artist Act for the duration of this case.

The Court enters this as an interim order, pending a response from the Defendant. The Court does not consider challenges to standing, claim, or other potential preemptory challenges from the Defense in this interim order. The Court may modify this interim order after response from defense, or at its own discretion.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The Department of Justice is ordered to provide a Complaint to this Court within 4 hours of the time of this post. Failure to do so will automatically render the above granted injunction null and void by operation of law (see: JSA Part V, Section 1(3)) and may result in dismissal.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

CC: @gribble19 and @Superwoops

 

[Superwoops]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Aventura
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Town of Aventura has enacted the Act of Council - The Other Commission an Artist Act, an Act which conditions access to certain channels specifically designated towards political communication on the swearing of a pledge. This operates as a prior restraint on political speech and is therefore unconstitutional.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Plaintiff)
2. Town of Aventura (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On May 18th 2026, Aventura Councillor Anthony_Org posts a draft of the The Other Commission an Artist Act. (See Act of Council - The Other Commission an Artist Act)
2. On May 20th, 2026, the draft is put up to vote by Aventura Speaker musrodent.
3. On May 20th, 2026, Aventura Speaker musrodent declares the motion as having passed and becoming an official Town Act of Council. (P-002)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Act violates §35(6) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont: Any citizen who previously had access to the channels mentioned in the Act must now sign a pledge before being granted access. This action essentially bars entry to the political forum; regardless of whether they sign the pledge or not, or the reasons behind the pledge itself, the Constitutional violation is already fulfilled. The Constitution protects not only the content of political speech, but access to it as well.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The entirety of the Act of Council - The Other Commission an Artist Act is struck as unconstitutional for breaching §35(6) of the Constitution.

Spoiler: P-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 20th day of May 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Aventura
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Town of Aventura has enacted the Act of Council - The Other Commission an Artist Act, an Act which conditions access to certain channels specifically designated towards political communication on the swearing of a pledge. This operates as a prior restraint on political speech and is therefore unconstitutional.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Plaintiff)
2. Town of Aventura (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On May 18th 2026, Aventura Councillor Anthony_Org posts a draft of the The Other Commission an Artist Act. (See Act of Council - The Other Commission an Artist Act)
2. On May 20th, 2026, the draft is put up to vote by Aventura Speaker musrodent.
3. On May 20th, 2026, Aventura Speaker musrodent declares the motion as having passed and becoming an official Town Act of Council. (P-002)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Act violates §35(6) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont: Any citizen who previously had access to the channels mentioned in the Act must now sign a pledge before being granted access. This action essentially bars entry to the political forum; regardless of whether they sign the pledge or not, or the reasons behind the pledge itself, the Constitutional violation is already fulfilled. The Constitution protects not only the content of political speech, but access to it as well.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The entirety of the Act of Council - The Other Commission an Artist Act is struck as unconstitutional for breaching §35(6) of the Constitution.

Spoiler: P-002

View attachment 82968

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 20th day of May 2026

48 hours to present an answer to complaint. ( @gribble19 and @Anthony_Org )

 

[gribble19]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION (#1)

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has motioned this court to grant an emergency injunction ordering the Town of Aventura to refrain from enforcing The Other Commission an Artist Act until the conclusion of this case. The Defendant strongly opposes this request. The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm, which means that when considering granting an emergency injunction the standard that must be considered is whether the harm of the emergency injunction exceeds the harm that it prevents. See Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23; see also RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25. In this response we will first go over several mistakes made within Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunction. We will then show that granting the requested emergency injunction would not prevent any irreparable harm. Lastly, we will show that granting the requested emergency injunction would instead cause irreparable harm.

I. MISTAKES IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

I.I AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION WOULD NOT BE IN LINE WITH THE CITED PRECEDENT

The Commonwealth has posited in their motion that granting the requested emergency injunction would be in accordance with precedent set by The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Oakridge [2023] FCR 107. This is a direct misrepresentation of the truth. In neither of these cases an emergency injunction was filed, let alone granted. In neither of these cases the Town of Oakridge (the Defendant in both cases) was ordered by the court to refrain from enforcing the specific laws which were in question before a verdict was reached.

The fact that the Commonwealth’s statement is untrue is furthermore clear from the following passage in the verdict of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45: “1. It is the ruling of this court that i find in Favor of the Plaintiff and hereby order that the bylaw entitled The Really Really Boring Act (Link) be struck down as unconstitutional and that effective immediately it stop being enforced” [emphasis added]. This wording clearly shows that the court had not ordered the bylaw to stop being enforced prior to the verdict in this case.

I.II THE STANLEY STANDARD IS NOT APPLICABLE

The Commonwealth has posited in their motion that the requested emergency injunction should be granted since the The Other Commission an Artist Act fails to meet the requirements imposed by the Stanley Standard. See Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23. The Stanley Standard, however, is not relevant to The Other Commission an Artist Act. The Stanley Standard is a formal test governing prosecutions or civil actions in which a statute of general applicability is invoked against political speech. See id. The Other Commission an Artist Act is not a prosecution or civil action, but rather a law. As such, the Stanley Standard is not applicable.

II. NO HARM WOULD BE PREVENTED BY THE REQUESTED EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

II.I FREEDOM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE TO ALL

Enforcing The Other Commission an Artist Act would not result in any citizen of Redmont being unable to freely engage in political communication.

The Plaintiff in their motion claims that by limiting access to a channel which allows for political speech, citizens' Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Political Communication would be infringed on. This is not true. There are many channels, both throughout the Redmontian Discord servers and outside of those official Discord servers, for candidates, and any other citizens, to engage in political communication. Not only is there a #campaign channel in the main DemocracyCraft server and are there in-game methods of expressing yourself, the candidates are also able to express themselves in the #politics channel in the Aventuran server, which expressly serves the purpose of political expression and communication. In these channels, anyone is able to express, criticize, or advocate for political ideas and government policies. Nobody is being limited from expressing themselves politically. There remain many channels to do so and all political opinions and stances are welcome.

Even when assuming that The Other Commission an Artist Act would bar certain citizens generally from using the #campaign channel, which it does not, nobody would possibly be generally barred from communicating about government or political matters as a result of this.

II.II RESTRICTIONS ON A PARTICULAR POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS CHANNEL ARE COMMONPLACE

There are many other channels and avenues for political communication, including many such channels for which the federal government of the Commonwealth of Redmont themselves are responsible, which bar certain people from using those channels to communicate. An example is the #briefing channel in the main DC Discord. The entire purpose of this channel is political communication and access to this channel is limited to those with certain roles and positions within the Government. If limiting access to a single channel which allows for political communication is thus a potential infringement on the Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Political Communication, then any channel which allows for political communication should not bar anyone from participating in the channel and actively using it to communicate their political views. This would clearly result in a ridiculous situation.

II.III ON THE PARTICULAR “RESTRICTIONS” TO GAIN ACCESS

The only “restriction” that is placed to access channels under The Other Commission an Artist Act is that one must make a particular pledge before being allowed to communicate in a specific group of channels. As shown in II.II, many channels throughout Redmont, including ones which allow for political communication and expression, have much stricter requirements in order to be allowed to communicate within them.

The restriction imposed is equal for all and is not based on any predetermined traits, positions or abilities. It also does not require a significant amount of effort. All it requires is a single pledge to be made. It requires the same for everyone, and it is something that anyone is able to do.

II.IV THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

The controlling authority on the scope of the protection of citizen’s Freedom of Political Communication is the GER Standard, a two-pronged framework used to determine when a constitutional claim of political communication arises. The GER Standard was created by the Supreme Court of Redmont through the following passage: “The mere fact that political communication may be impacted by [government action] does not create a constitutional claim of political communication. For such a claim to exist, a government entity must be directly targeting political communication itself, or the restriction imposed on the communicator so egregious and widespread (regardless of government intent) that the restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator.” See Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 78, 12 (appeal); See Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23.

It is clear enforcing The Other Commission an Artist Act would not be an instance of the government directly targeting political communication itself. Rather, it would impose a simple step required to gain a specific role that grants permission to speak in certain communication channels, including channels that are entirely unrelated to political communication.

As has been shown in II.I, II.II and II.III, the restriction that the law in question here attempts to impose is also not so egregious and widespread that the restriction serves to totally suppress the communicator. The restriction that would be imposed is one that can be easily fulfilled by any potential communicator, the restriction that would be imposed is less strict than restrictions posed on other channels of political communication, and lastly many other avenues of political communication remain available to any potential communicators, ensuring that no total suppression of the communicator would ever occur as a result of the enforcement of The Other Commission an Artist Act.

As such, considering the GER Standard, there is no potential constitutional claim of an infringement on any citizen’s right to Freedom of Political Communication as a result of enforcement of The Other Commission an Artist Act. Accordingly, enforcement of The Other Commission an Artist Act would not lead to any harm and the requested emergency injunction would not prevent any harm.

III. HARM WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE REQUESTED EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

In our democratic society it is of utmost importance that the duly elected representatives of our citizens are able to properly fulfill their duties. The local Aventuran council has been democratically elected by the citizens of Aventura and has with the mandate of the people of Aventura passed The Other Commission an Artist Act following the appropriate processes. Through the democratic processes that form the cornerstones of our government and society, it is the will of the people that it be enacted.

If one can simply start a case alleging that a law is unconstitutional in order to prevent enforcement of it for an undetermined amount of time, this creates a threat to the democratic fundamentals of our government and society. A small minority or even a single person should not be able to prevent a democratically elected council from fulfilling their duties and goals for which they have been given a mandate by the people. Allowing this emergency injunction will cause harm not only to the council and local government of Aventura, who will not be able to properly fulfill their duties for an undetermined amount of time, while their terms in these positions are limited, but also to all the Aventurans who voted for this council. Due to the limited time that their terms last, this would be an irreparable harm. Beyond that, it would set a precedent that could harm all the citizens of Redmont. The citizens of redmont deserve their democratically elected government to function as it should, and to be able to enforce the laws which have followed the appropriate processes to be put into law, without a single person being able to prevent enforcement of legislation through simple allegations of unconstitutionality, without first proving that the legislation is actually unconstitutional in a court of law.

IV. CONCLUSION

The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm, which means that when considering granting an emergency injunction the standard that must be considered is whether the harm of the emergency injunction exceeds the harm that it prevents. Throughout this response the Defendant has shown that granting the emergency injunction would not prevent any irreparable harm, but would instead cause irreparable harm to Aventura’s government and citizens. In line with this, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion, and that no emergency injunction is granted.

Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION (#1)

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has motioned this court to grant an emergency injunction ordering the Town of Aventura to refrain from enforcing The Other Commission an Artist Act until the conclusion of this case. The Defendant strongly opposes this request. The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm, which means that when considering granting an emergency injunction the standard that must be considered is whether the harm of the emergency injunction exceeds the harm that it prevents. See Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23; see also RiggoSoft V. Dimitre977 [2026] DCR 25. In this response we will first go over several mistakes made within Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunction. We will then show that granting the requested emergency injunction would not prevent any irreparable harm. Lastly, we will show that granting the requested emergency injunction would instead cause irreparable harm.

I. MISTAKES IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

I.I AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION WOULD NOT BE IN LINE WITH THE CITED PRECEDENT

The Commonwealth has posited in their motion that granting the requested emergency injunction would be in accordance with precedent set by The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Oakridge [2023] FCR 107. This is a direct misrepresentation of the truth. In neither of these cases an emergency injunction was filed, let alone granted. In neither of these cases the Town of Oakridge (the Defendant in both cases) was ordered by the court to refrain from enforcing the specific laws which were in question before a verdict was reached.

The fact that the Commonwealth’s statement is untrue is furthermore clear from the following passage in the verdict of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45: “1. It is the ruling of this court that i find in Favor of the Plaintiff and hereby order that the bylaw entitled The Really Really Boring Act (Link) be struck down as unconstitutional and that effective immediately it stop being enforced” [emphasis added]. This wording clearly shows that the court had not ordered the bylaw to stop being enforced prior to the verdict in this case.

I.II THE STANLEY STANDARD IS NOT APPLICABLE

The Commonwealth has posited in their motion that the requested emergency injunction should be granted since the The Other Commission an Artist Act fails to meet the requirements imposed by the Stanley Standard. See Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23. The Stanley Standard, however, is not relevant to The Other Commission an Artist Act. The Stanley Standard is a formal test governing prosecutions or civil actions in which a statute of general applicability is invoked against political speech. See id. The Other Commission an Artist Act is not a prosecution or civil action, but rather a law. As such, the Stanley Standard is not applicable.

II. NO HARM WOULD BE PREVENTED BY THE REQUESTED EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

II.I FREEDOM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE TO ALL

Enforcing The Other Commission an Artist Act would not result in any citizen of Redmont being unable to freely engage in political communication.

The Plaintiff in their motion claims that by limiting access to a channel which allows for political speech, citizens' Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Political Communication would be infringed on. This is not true. There are many channels, both throughout the Redmontian Discord servers and outside of those official Discord servers, for candidates, and any other citizens, to engage in political communication. Not only is there a #campaign channel in the main DemocracyCraft server and are there in-game methods of expressing yourself, the candidates are also able to express themselves in the #politics channel in the Aventuran server, which expressly serves the purpose of political expression and communication. In these channels, anyone is able to express, criticize, or advocate for political ideas and government policies. Nobody is being limited from expressing themselves politically. There remain many channels to do so and all political opinions and stances are welcome.

Even when assuming that The Other Commission an Artist Act would bar certain citizens generally from using the #campaign channel, which it does not, nobody would possibly be generally barred from communicating about government or political matters as a result of this.

II.II RESTRICTIONS ON A PARTICULAR POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS CHANNEL ARE COMMONPLACE

There are many other channels and avenues for political communication, including many such channels for which the federal government of the Commonwealth of Redmont themselves are responsible, which bar certain people from using those channels to communicate. An example is the #briefing channel in the main DC Discord. The entire purpose of this channel is political communication and access to this channel is limited to those with certain roles and positions within the Government. If limiting access to a single channel which allows for political communication is thus a potential infringement on the Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Political Communication, then any channel which allows for political communication should not bar anyone from participating in the channel and actively using it to communicate their political views. This would clearly result in a ridiculous situation.

II.III ON THE PARTICULAR “RESTRICTIONS” TO GAIN ACCESS

The only “restriction” that is placed to access channels under The Other Commission an Artist Act is that one must make a particular pledge before being allowed to communicate in a specific group of channels. As shown in II.II, many channels throughout Redmont, including ones which allow for political communication and expression, have much stricter requirements in order to be allowed to communicate within them.

The restriction imposed is equal for all and is not based on any predetermined traits, positions or abilities. It also does not require a significant amount of effort. All it requires is a single pledge to be made. It requires the same for everyone, and it is something that anyone is able to do.

II.IV THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

The controlling authority on the scope of the protection of citizen’s Freedom of Political Communication is the GER Standard, a two-pronged framework used to determine when a constitutional claim of political communication arises. The GER Standard was created by the Supreme Court of Redmont through the following passage: “The mere fact that political communication may be impacted by [government action] does not create a constitutional claim of political communication. For such a claim to exist, a government entity must be directly targeting political communication itself, or the restriction imposed on the communicator so egregious and widespread (regardless of government intent) that the restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator.” See Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 78, 12 (appeal); See Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23.

It is clear enforcing The Other Commission an Artist Act would not be an instance of the government directly targeting political communication itself. Rather, it would impose a simple step required to gain a specific role that grants permission to speak in certain communication channels, including channels that are entirely unrelated to political communication.

As has been shown in II.I, II.II and II.III, the restriction that the law in question here attempts to impose is also not so egregious and widespread that the restriction serves to totally suppress the communicator. The restriction that would be imposed is one that can be easily fulfilled by any potential communicator, the restriction that would be imposed is less strict than restrictions posed on other channels of political communication, and lastly many other avenues of political communication remain available to any potential communicators, ensuring that no total suppression of the communicator would ever occur as a result of the enforcement of The Other Commission an Artist Act.

As such, considering the GER Standard, there is no potential constitutional claim of an infringement on any citizen’s right to Freedom of Political Communication as a result of enforcement of The Other Commission an Artist Act. Accordingly, enforcement of The Other Commission an Artist Act would not lead to any harm and the requested emergency injunction would not prevent any harm.

III. HARM WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE REQUESTED EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

In our democratic society it is of utmost importance that the duly elected representatives of our citizens are able to properly fulfill their duties. The local Aventuran council has been democratically elected by the citizens of Aventura and has with the mandate of the people of Aventura passed The Other Commission an Artist Act following the appropriate processes. Through the democratic processes that form the cornerstones of our government and society, it is the will of the people that it be enacted.

If one can simply start a case alleging that a law is unconstitutional in order to prevent enforcement of it for an undetermined amount of time, this creates a threat to the democratic fundamentals of our government and society. A small minority or even a single person should not be able to prevent a democratically elected council from fulfilling their duties and goals for which they have been given a mandate by the people. Allowing this emergency injunction will cause harm not only to the council and local government of Aventura, who will not be able to properly fulfill their duties for an undetermined amount of time, while their terms in these positions are limited, but also to all the Aventurans who voted for this council. Due to the limited time that their terms last, this would be an irreparable harm. Beyond that, it would set a precedent that could harm all the citizens of Redmont. The citizens of redmont deserve their democratically elected government to function as it should, and to be able to enforce the laws which have followed the appropriate processes to be put into law, without a single person being able to prevent enforcement of legislation through simple allegations of unconstitutionality, without first proving that the legislation is actually unconstitutional in a court of law.

IV. CONCLUSION

The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm, which means that when considering granting an emergency injunction the standard that must be considered is whether the harm of the emergency injunction exceeds the harm that it prevents. Throughout this response the Defendant has shown that granting the emergency injunction would not prevent any irreparable harm, but would instead cause irreparable harm to Aventura’s government and citizens. In line with this, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion, and that no emergency injunction is granted.

Thank you.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERIM ORDER — EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff has pleaded that enforcement The Other Commission an Artist Act would cause constitutional injury through a restriction of the Freedom of Political Communication that the Charter enshrines. The Court, balancing alleged constitutional injury against the ability of the town to enforce a local bylaw, grants an emergency injunction as follows:

1. The Town of Aventura may not enforce The Other Commission an Artist Act for the duration of this case.

The Court enters this as an interim order, pending a response from the Defendant. The Court does not consider challenges to standing, claim, or other potential preemptory challenges from the Defense in this interim order. The Court may modify this interim order after response from defense, or at its own discretion.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - REVOCATION OF INTERIM ORDER

The Court, upon reviewing the response provided by Defendant, revokes the emergency injunction previously issued in Post No. 12. Aventura may enforce The Other Commission an Artist Act throughout this case; the Court declines to further enjoin enforcement until fuller fact-finding and fuller consideration of laws may occur at the conclusion of this case in a final order or verdict.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

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

Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Aventura
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on May 18th 2026, Aventura Councillor Anthony_Org posted a draft of the The Other Commission an Artist Act.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on May 20th, 2026, this draft was put up to vote by Aventura Speaker musrodent.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on May 20th, 2026, Aventura Speaker musrodent declared the vote as having passed and becoming an official Town Act of Council.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Other Commission an Artist Act does not bar entry to the political forum:
The Other Commission an Artist Act does not bar entry to the political forum for any citizen of Redmont.

There are many channels, both throughout the Redmontian Discord servers and outside of those official Discord servers, for candidates, and any other citizens, to engage in political communication on the political forum. Not only is there a #campaign channel in the main DemocracyCraft server and are there in-game methods of expressing yourself, the candidates are also able to express themselves in the #politics channel in the Aventuran server, which expressly serves the purpose of political forum. In these channels, anyone is able to express, criticize, or advocate for political ideas and government policies. Nobody is being barred entry from the political forum, as there remain many channels in which all political opinions and stances are welcome.

Even when assuming that The Other Commission an Artist Act would bar certain citizens generally from using the channels on which it places restrictions, which it doesn’t, nobody would possibly be generally barred from the political forum.

2. Limitations on a particular channel of political communication are commonplace:

There are many other channels and avenues part of the political forum, including many such channels for which the federal government of the Commonwealth of Redmont themselves are responsible, which bar certain people from using those channels to communicate. An example is the #briefing channel in the main DC Discord. The entire purpose of this channel is political communication, as such it is a part of the political forum, and access to this channel is limited to those with certain roles and positions within the Government. If limiting access to a single channel which allows for political communication is thus a potential infringement on the Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Political Communication, then any channel which allows for political communication should not bar anyone from participating in the channel and actively using it to communicate their political views. This would clearly result in a ridiculous situation.

3. Any restrictions placed on access to channels under The Other Commission an Artist Act is neutral in intention and application:

The only restriction that is placed to access channels under The Other Commission an Artist Act is that one must make a particular pledge before being allowed to communicate in a specific group of channels. As described in II.2, many channels throughout Redmont, including ones which are part of the political forum, have much stricter requirements in order to be allowed to communicate within them.

The restriction imposed is neutral in intention and application. It is not based on any predetermined traits, positions or abilities. It also does not require a significant amount of effort. All it requires is a single pledge to be made. It requires the same for everyone, and it is something that anyone is able to do.

4. There is no constitutional claim of Political Communication under the GER Standard:

The controlling authority on the scope of the protection of citizen’s Freedom of Political Communication is the GER Standard, a two-pronged framework used to determine when a constitutional claim of political communication arises. The GER Standard prescribes that for a claim of freedom of political to be breached by the government, it is necessary that either a government entity must be directly targeting political communication itself, or the restriction imposed on the communicator must be so egregious and widespread that the restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator.

It is clear that The Other Commission an Artist Act is not an instance of the government directly targeting political communication itself. Rather, it imposes a simple step required to gain a specific role that grants permission to speak in certain communication channels, including channels that are entirely unrelated to political communication.

As has been shown in II.1, II.2 and II.3, the restriction that the law in question here attempts to impose is also not so egregious and widespread that the restriction serves to totally suppress the communicator. The restriction that would be imposed is one that can be easily fulfilled by any potential communicator, the restriction that would be imposed is less strict than restrictions posed on other channels of political communication, and lastly many other avenues of political communication remain available to any potential communicators, ensuring that no total suppression of the communicator would ever occur as a result of The Other Commission an Artist Act.


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 twenty-third day of May 2026.

Motion

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


Your Honor,
The Defendant seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff’s only claim for relief in their Complaint is that The Other Commission an Artist Act violates Art. 35.6 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. While this unconstitutionality in itself may be a valid claim, more than that is required. Namely, that a claim for relief has sufficient evidence to support the claim. See Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. Merely alleging that a law is unconstitutional can not in itself be enough to create a sufficiently supported valid claim, as if that were true any lawsuit could simply allege that a certain law was unconstitutional without providing any evidence or sufficient legal argument of why that was the case in order to pass the test presented by Rule 5.5. This would create a ridiculous situation.

Therefore, we must look at the reasoning and evidence provided within Plaintiff’s Complaint to see whether or not this sufficiently supports their claim of unconstitutionality of The Other Commission an Artist Act.

It is obvious that the facts provided under Section II of Plaintiff’s Complaint are not sufficient evidence to support the claim of unconstitutionality. The set of facts merely regards the legislative process of The Other Commission an Artist Act, with which the Plaintiff has not alleged any issues, constitutional or otherwise.

This means that the only other place remaining to look for this sufficient evidence is the explanation that the Plaintiff gives when explaining their Claim for Relief.

The only explanation Plaintiff gives here is that the Other Commission an Artist Act bars entry to the political forum, and that this barring of entry to the political forum creates a Constitutional violation.

The sufficient evidence of the claim thus hinges entirely on the alleged truth that the Other Commission an Artist Act bars entry to the political forum. This however is clearly and obviously not the case, and the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of this claim of entry to the political forum being barred.

It is a generally known fact that there are many channels, both throughout the Redmontian Discord servers and outside of those official Discord servers, for candidates, and any other citizens, to engage in political communication. The Plaintiff in their Complaint argues that the channels on which restrictions are placed under The Other Commission an Artist Act will be barred to potential communicators, but does not provide evidence or even merely claims that entry to any other channels of political communication will be barred. This, combined with the obvious truth that other channels of political communication outside of the three channels mentioned in The Other Commission an Artist Act exist (a fact which Plaintiff does not contest or allege to be false in their Complaint) means that even under the most generous reading of Plaintiff’s argument, where it is assumed true that The Other Commission an Artist Act indeed completely bars access to the channels on which it places restrictions, it is not true that The Other Commission an Artist Act thus bars entry to the political forum entirely for anyone, which is the only argument Plaintiff made to support their claim of unconstitutionality.

As the Plaintiff’s only legal argument supporting their claim is thus hinging on a fact which is obviously untrue, and for which the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence supporting the fact, the Plaintiff has failed to reach the standard of sufficiently supporting a claim that is required per the Court Rules & Procedures. In line with this, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim, and with that this lawsuit, be dismissed.

Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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


Your Honor,
The Defendant seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff’s only claim for relief in their Complaint is that The Other Commission an Artist Act violates Art. 35.6 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. While this unconstitutionality in itself may be a valid claim, more than that is required. Namely, that a claim for relief has sufficient evidence to support the claim. See Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. Merely alleging that a law is unconstitutional can not in itself be enough to create a sufficiently supported valid claim, as if that were true any lawsuit could simply allege that a certain law was unconstitutional without providing any evidence or sufficient legal argument of why that was the case in order to pass the test presented by Rule 5.5. This would create a ridiculous situation.

Therefore, we must look at the reasoning and evidence provided within Plaintiff’s Complaint to see whether or not this sufficiently supports their claim of unconstitutionality of The Other Commission an Artist Act.

It is obvious that the facts provided under Section II of Plaintiff’s Complaint are not sufficient evidence to support the claim of unconstitutionality. The set of facts merely regards the legislative process of The Other Commission an Artist Act, with which the Plaintiff has not alleged any issues, constitutional or otherwise.

This means that the only other place remaining to look for this sufficient evidence is the explanation that the Plaintiff gives when explaining their Claim for Relief.

The only explanation Plaintiff gives here is that the Other Commission an Artist Act bars entry to the political forum, and that this barring of entry to the political forum creates a Constitutional violation.

The sufficient evidence of the claim thus hinges entirely on the alleged truth that the Other Commission an Artist Act bars entry to the political forum. This however is clearly and obviously not the case, and the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of this claim of entry to the political forum being barred.

It is a generally known fact that there are many channels, both throughout the Redmontian Discord servers and outside of those official Discord servers, for candidates, and any other citizens, to engage in political communication. The Plaintiff in their Complaint argues that the channels on which restrictions are placed under The Other Commission an Artist Act will be barred to potential communicators, but does not provide evidence or even merely claims that entry to any other channels of political communication will be barred. This, combined with the obvious truth that other channels of political communication outside of the three channels mentioned in The Other Commission an Artist Act exist (a fact which Plaintiff does not contest or allege to be false in their Complaint) means that even under the most generous reading of Plaintiff’s argument, where it is assumed true that The Other Commission an Artist Act indeed completely bars access to the channels on which it places restrictions, it is not true that The Other Commission an Artist Act thus bars entry to the political forum entirely for anyone, which is the only argument Plaintiff made to support their claim of unconstitutionality.

As the Plaintiff’s only legal argument supporting their claim is thus hinging on a fact which is obviously untrue, and for which the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence supporting the fact, the Plaintiff has failed to reach the standard of sufficiently supporting a claim that is required per the Court Rules & Procedures. In line with this, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim, and with that this lawsuit, be dismissed.

Thank you.

Plaintiff is ordered to respond to this motion within 48 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Discovery is now open and shall remain open for 5 days.

 

[Dogeington]

Good evening your honor, I will be representing the Commonwealth from here on out.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

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

Your honor, we ask that you reconsider your ruling on denying the Commonwealth's request for an emergency injunction.

The Defenses' response waxes philosophic on the nature of the case in its entirety, therefore to avoid posting its opening statements in a MTR, the Commonwealth will only address the defense’s points that are immediately relevant to the emergency injunction.

1.1 The emergency injunction is in line with cited precedent.
The idea behind citing FCR 45 and FCR 107 is to show that the DOJ does in fact have standing to pursue this case, a necessary inclusion as the emergency injunction was filed before the full complaint. The defense misconstrued this citation as a defense of the EI itself. This intent of those citations is fully clear in a reading of our initial emergency injunction, as the last sentence stated, “both of which (both cases) reinforcing the idea that the Department of Justice is entrusted with ensuring Town bylaws are constitutional.”

1.2 The Stanley Standard is somewhat applicable
Factor six of the Stanley Standard is perhaps directly applicable to the legal question at hand. “The government must demonstrate that no less restrictive alternative exists. The democratic process, including voter judgment, political opposition, and press scrutiny, is in nearly all cases the appropriate check on campaign speech.” Although this is in the context of taking criminal action, it is not a stretch of the imagination to see how this would be applicable to any government imposed limitation on free speech.

The defense is correct that the Stanley Standard is not directly applicable to the case at hand, but once again, has misconstrued this citation as a wholesale condemnation of the Other Commission an Artist Act, failing to see any nuance in the citation.

However, as the Stanley Standard is a legal test established in federal court, it is in no way binding upon this case and is only useful as supplemental reading to the arguments made herein.

1.3 Harm will be prevented by the granting of this Emergency Injunction
It is here that the defense essentially lays out their case. The Commonwealth will not do the same. It is undeniable that some channels of political communication would be restricted should this law be enforced. This has not been disputed by the defense, as visible in their response to the emergency injunction, "There remain many channels to do so and all political opinions and stances are welcome."
The ability of some candidates to post political ads and other commentary will be barred by the enforcement of this act. Whether or not this restriction constitutes a breach of their Constitutionally protected rights remains to be seen. Therefore, due to the possibility of a violation by this undisputed restriction, the courts should grant this emergency injunction.
This is truly the nature of any emergency injunction: to prevent potential damage, damage whose legitimacy will be determined through the outcome of this case. To not grant this emergency injunction would be to preemptively consider the Commonwealth’s claim as invalid, as the court would in essence consider the political communication in question as not needing protection.

1.4 No Harm would be caused through the granting of the Emergency Injunction
This final section offered by the defense is perhaps the most ridiculous. Yes, the Aventura Council was elected by the people to enact their will, however that by no means gives them carte blanche authority to do as they please. Democratically elected representatives and councils are not immune to error.

Further, it is the bedrock of our democratic system that a single individual could be unconstitutionally affected by the law and sue so that their rights are upheld. The greatest tool at our disposal for determining the legitimacy of laws is Chief Justice Smallfries’s verdict in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth FCR 117 - Appeal. “There must be a legal reason for the law to be overturned.”
…
“It is indeed true that individuals do not need to prove they have been specifically harmed in some discrete, tangible manner—but they still must prove some injury occurred. It should be noted that the bar for this is extremely low.”
Regardless, the above quotation is primarily concerning the precedent of overturning a law, but I feel its use is justified in this case, specifically in the defense’s callose attack on the standing of constutitional violation suits.

This emergency injunction would not prevent the Aventuran government from fulfilling its duties. Further this injunction would not wipe this law from the books, but rather prevent its enforcement for the duration of this case as a precaution. Any damage alleged would be fully reversible by the end of this case. The arguments posed by the defense that this delay would in any way harm the council or the citizens who voted for this council is so preposterous as to not merit a response.

1.5 Conclusion
We hope that with a further explanation of the Commonwealth’s position, and through examination of the defense concerns, your honor would reconsider your position to revoke the emergency injunction, and instead grant it to prevent further harm.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your honor, we ask that you reconsider your ruling on denying the Commonwealth's request for an emergency injunction.

The Defenses' response waxes philosophic on the nature of the case in its entirety, therefore to avoid posting its opening statements in a MTR, the Commonwealth will only address the defense’s points that are immediately relevant to the emergency injunction.

1.1 The emergency injunction is in line with cited precedent.
The idea behind citing FCR 45 and FCR 107 is to show that the DOJ does in fact have standing to pursue this case, a necessary inclusion as the emergency injunction was filed before the full complaint. The defense misconstrued this citation as a defense of the EI itself. This intent of those citations is fully clear in a reading of our initial emergency injunction, as the last sentence stated, “both of which (both cases) reinforcing the idea that the Department of Justice is entrusted with ensuring Town bylaws are constitutional.”

1.2 The Stanley Standard is somewhat applicable
Factor six of the Stanley Standard is perhaps directly applicable to the legal question at hand. “The government must demonstrate that no less restrictive alternative exists. The democratic process, including voter judgment, political opposition, and press scrutiny, is in nearly all cases the appropriate check on campaign speech.” Although this is in the context of taking criminal action, it is not a stretch of the imagination to see how this would be applicable to any government imposed limitation on free speech.

The defense is correct that the Stanley Standard is not directly applicable to the case at hand, but once again, has misconstrued this citation as a wholesale condemnation of the Other Commission an Artist Act, failing to see any nuance in the citation.

However, as the Stanley Standard is a legal test established in federal court, it is in no way binding upon this case and is only useful as supplemental reading to the arguments made herein.

1.3 Harm will be prevented by the granting of this Emergency Injunction
It is here that the defense essentially lays out their case. The Commonwealth will not do the same. It is undeniable that some channels of political communication would be restricted should this law be enforced. This has not been disputed by the defense, as visible in their response to the emergency injunction, "There remain many channels to do so and all political opinions and stances are welcome."
The ability of some candidates to post political ads and other commentary will be barred by the enforcement of this act. Whether or not this restriction constitutes a breach of their Constitutionally protected rights remains to be seen. Therefore, due to the possibility of a violation by this undisputed restriction, the courts should grant this emergency injunction.
This is truly the nature of any emergency injunction: to prevent potential damage, damage whose legitimacy will be determined through the outcome of this case. To not grant this emergency injunction would be to preemptively consider the Commonwealth’s claim as invalid, as the court would in essence consider the political communication in question as not needing protection.

1.4 No Harm would be caused through the granting of the Emergency Injunction
This final section offered by the defense is perhaps the most ridiculous. Yes, the Aventura Council was elected by the people to enact their will, however that by no means gives them carte blanche authority to do as they please. Democratically elected representatives and councils are not immune to error.

Further, it is the bedrock of our democratic system that a single individual could be unconstitutionally affected by the law and sue so that their rights are upheld. The greatest tool at our disposal for determining the legitimacy of laws is Chief Justice Smallfries’s verdict in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth FCR 117 - Appeal. “There must be a legal reason for the law to be overturned.”
…
“It is indeed true that individuals do not need to prove they have been specifically harmed in some discrete, tangible manner—but they still must prove some injury occurred. It should be noted that the bar for this is extremely low.”
Regardless, the above quotation is primarily concerning the precedent of overturning a law, but I feel its use is justified in this case, specifically in the defense’s callose attack on the standing of constutitional violation suits.

This emergency injunction would not prevent the Aventuran government from fulfilling its duties. Further this injunction would not wipe this law from the books, but rather prevent its enforcement for the duration of this case as a precaution. Any damage alleged would be fully reversible by the end of this case. The arguments posed by the defense that this delay would in any way harm the council or the citizens who voted for this council is so preposterous as to not merit a response.

1.5 Conclusion
We hope that with a further explanation of the Commonwealth’s position, and through examination of the defense concerns, your honor would reconsider your position to revoke the emergency injunction, and instead grant it to prevent further harm.

The Defendant shall have 48 hours to respond to this motion to reconsider.

 

[Dogeington]

Answer to Complaint

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

Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Aventura
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on May 18th 2026, Aventura Councillor Anthony_Org posted a draft of the The Other Commission an Artist Act.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on May 20th, 2026, this draft was put up to vote by Aventura Speaker musrodent.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on May 20th, 2026, Aventura Speaker musrodent declared the vote as having passed and becoming an official Town Act of Council.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Other Commission an Artist Act does not bar entry to the political forum:
The Other Commission an Artist Act does not bar entry to the political forum for any citizen of Redmont.

There are many channels, both throughout the Redmontian Discord servers and outside of those official Discord servers, for candidates, and any other citizens, to engage in political communication on the political forum. Not only is there a #campaign channel in the main DemocracyCraft server and are there in-game methods of expressing yourself, the candidates are also able to express themselves in the #politics channel in the Aventuran server, which expressly serves the purpose of political forum. In these channels, anyone is able to express, criticize, or advocate for political ideas and government policies. Nobody is being barred entry from the political forum, as there remain many channels in which all political opinions and stances are welcome.

Even when assuming that The Other Commission an Artist Act would bar certain citizens generally from using the channels on which it places restrictions, which it doesn’t, nobody would possibly be generally barred from the political forum.

2. Limitations on a particular channel of political communication are commonplace:

There are many other channels and avenues part of the political forum, including many such channels for which the federal government of the Commonwealth of Redmont themselves are responsible, which bar certain people from using those channels to communicate. An example is the #briefing channel in the main DC Discord. The entire purpose of this channel is political communication, as such it is a part of the political forum, and access to this channel is limited to those with certain roles and positions within the Government. If limiting access to a single channel which allows for political communication is thus a potential infringement on the Constitutionally-protected Freedom of Political Communication, then any channel which allows for political communication should not bar anyone from participating in the channel and actively using it to communicate their political views. This would clearly result in a ridiculous situation.

3. Any restrictions placed on access to channels under The Other Commission an Artist Act is neutral in intention and application:

The only restriction that is placed to access channels under The Other Commission an Artist Act is that one must make a particular pledge before being allowed to communicate in a specific group of channels. As described in II.2, many channels throughout Redmont, including ones which are part of the political forum, have much stricter requirements in order to be allowed to communicate within them.

The restriction imposed is neutral in intention and application. It is not based on any predetermined traits, positions or abilities. It also does not require a significant amount of effort. All it requires is a single pledge to be made. It requires the same for everyone, and it is something that anyone is able to do.

4. There is no constitutional claim of Political Communication under the GER Standard:

The controlling authority on the scope of the protection of citizen’s Freedom of Political Communication is the GER Standard, a two-pronged framework used to determine when a constitutional claim of political communication arises. The GER Standard prescribes that for a claim of freedom of political to be breached by the government, it is necessary that either a government entity must be directly targeting political communication itself, or the restriction imposed on the communicator must be so egregious and widespread that the restriction serves as to totally suppress the communicator.

It is clear that The Other Commission an Artist Act is not an instance of the government directly targeting political communication itself. Rather, it imposes a simple step required to gain a specific role that grants permission to speak in certain communication channels, including channels that are entirely unrelated to political communication.

As has been shown in II.1, II.2 and II.3, the restriction that the law in question here attempts to impose is also not so egregious and widespread that the restriction serves to totally suppress the communicator. The restriction that would be imposed is one that can be easily fulfilled by any potential communicator, the restriction that would be imposed is less strict than restrictions posed on other channels of political communication, and lastly many other avenues of political communication remain available to any potential communicators, ensuring that no total suppression of the communicator would ever occur as a result of The Other Commission an Artist Act.


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 twenty-third day of May 2026.

Motion

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


Your Honor,
The Defendant seeks dismissal of this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim). Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. In support thereof the Defendant respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff’s only claim for relief in their Complaint is that The Other Commission an Artist Act violates Art. 35.6 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. While this unconstitutionality in itself may be a valid claim, more than that is required. Namely, that a claim for relief has sufficient evidence to support the claim. See Court R. & Proc, Rule 5. Merely alleging that a law is unconstitutional can not in itself be enough to create a sufficiently supported valid claim, as if that were true any lawsuit could simply allege that a certain law was unconstitutional without providing any evidence or sufficient legal argument of why that was the case in order to pass the test presented by Rule 5.5. This would create a ridiculous situation.

Therefore, we must look at the reasoning and evidence provided within Plaintiff’s Complaint to see whether or not this sufficiently supports their claim of unconstitutionality of The Other Commission an Artist Act.

It is obvious that the facts provided under Section II of Plaintiff’s Complaint are not sufficient evidence to support the claim of unconstitutionality. The set of facts merely regards the legislative process of The Other Commission an Artist Act, with which the Plaintiff has not alleged any issues, constitutional or otherwise.

This means that the only other place remaining to look for this sufficient evidence is the explanation that the Plaintiff gives when explaining their Claim for Relief.

The only explanation Plaintiff gives here is that the Other Commission an Artist Act bars entry to the political forum, and that this barring of entry to the political forum creates a Constitutional violation.

The sufficient evidence of the claim thus hinges entirely on the alleged truth that the Other Commission an Artist Act bars entry to the political forum. This however is clearly and obviously not the case, and the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of this claim of entry to the political forum being barred.

It is a generally known fact that there are many channels, both throughout the Redmontian Discord servers and outside of those official Discord servers, for candidates, and any other citizens, to engage in political communication. The Plaintiff in their Complaint argues that the channels on which restrictions are placed under The Other Commission an Artist Act will be barred to potential communicators, but does not provide evidence or even merely claims that entry to any other channels of political communication will be barred. This, combined with the obvious truth that other channels of political communication outside of the three channels mentioned in The Other Commission an Artist Act exist (a fact which Plaintiff does not contest or allege to be false in their Complaint) means that even under the most generous reading of Plaintiff’s argument, where it is assumed true that The Other Commission an Artist Act indeed completely bars access to the channels on which it places restrictions, it is not true that The Other Commission an Artist Act thus bars entry to the political forum entirely for anyone, which is the only argument Plaintiff made to support their claim of unconstitutionality.

As the Plaintiff’s only legal argument supporting their claim is thus hinging on a fact which is obviously untrue, and for which the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence supporting the fact, the Plaintiff has failed to reach the standard of sufficiently supporting a claim that is required per the Court Rules & Procedures. In line with this, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim, and with that this lawsuit, be dismissed.

Thank you.

Motion

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

Seeing as the defense does not dispute any facts of the case, the Commonwealth moves for summary judgment.

The Commonwealth does however ask that the court allow both parties to post argumentation before summary judgment is rendered.

Further, The Commonwealth asks that the motion to dismiss's deadline is tolled pending the ruling on this motion, and that it would be denied following the acceptance of this motion.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Seeing as the defense does not dispute any facts of the case, the Commonwealth moves for summary judgment.

The Commonwealth does however ask that the court allow both parties to post argumentation before summary judgment is rendered.

Further, The Commonwealth asks that the motion to dismiss's deadline is tolled pending the ruling on this motion, and that it would be denied following the acceptance of this motion.

Dismissal deadline will not be tolled; summary judgement on the merits is something that I can only really answer after we get through motions that would short-circuit the case on procedural or other grounds (i.e. dismissal).

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Seeing as the defense does not dispute any facts of the case, the Commonwealth moves for summary judgment.

The Commonwealth does however ask that the court allow both parties to post argumentation before summary judgment is rendered.

Further, The Commonwealth asks that the motion to dismiss's deadline is tolled pending the ruling on this motion, and that it would be denied following the acceptance of this motion.

Defendant has 48 hours to respond to this motion.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor,
Defendant respectfully requests the deadlines for their responses to the Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Summary Judgment be tolled until a ruling has been issued on the pending Motion to Dismiss.
Thank you.

 

[Dogeington]

Plaintiff is ordered to respond to this motion within 48 hours.

Your honor, may I have a 24 hour extension to this deadline?

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor,
Defendant respectfully requests a 36 hour extension on both their pending responses.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor, may I have a 24 hour extension to this deadline?

Your Honor,
Defendant respectfully requests the deadlines for their responses to the Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Summary Judgment be tolled until a ruling has been issued on the pending Motion to Dismiss.
Thank you.

Your Honor,
Defendant respectfully requests a 36 hour extension on both their pending responses.

Here is what we will do:

Discovery is extended 72 hours sua sponte. A single extension of 24 hours is granted to respond to the MTD. I am going to toll deadlines on responses on the MTR and the Motion for Summary Judgement—they will be due 24 hours after the MTD itself is ruled on.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor,
Plaintiff's counsel has failed to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss despite their requested extension being granted. Defendant respectfully requests they be held in Contempt for this unnecessary cause of delays and that the Court moves on to a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[ameslap]

Apologies, Your Honor, there was some confusion on the deadline. We hope that the Court will accept the following:

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Motion to Dismiss

The defense in their motion to dismiss argues that “Merely alleging that a law is unconstitutional can not in itself be enough to create a sufficiently supported valid claim”. The Commonwealth clearly alleges in its complaint that this law would bar entry to a political forum, and alleges that this restriction constitutes a violation of the rights of all Redmontians. However, the defense in an immensely convoluted way disagrees with this premise, that somehow the act does not bar access to channels where political communication is done in Aventura.

First, let's look at the Other Commission an Artist Act. Section three of this act states;

(1) The Aventura Government shall establish an official Discord role called "Media Access" for individuals wishing to access #campaign, #advertisements, and #media.
(2) Access to #campaign, #advertisements, and #media shall be restricted exclusively to holders of such role.
(3) The role shall only be granted upon a player reacting to or otherwise affirming the following Anti-AI Pledge:

"I pledge not to utilize artificial intelligence generated artwork, campaign materials, advertisements, media, or other promotional content within official Aventura channels."

So right away, the defenses claim that The Other Commission an Artist Act does not bar these political forums is wrong; the opposite is explicitly stated in the law. Access to these channels hinges on the signing of a pledge created by this act. This allegation that “it is not true that The Other Commission an Artist Act thus bars entry to the political forum entirely” so egregiously denies the obvious verbatim fact that it nears the level of perjury.

Further, the defense states that this claim, that forums for political communication are being restricted, is not enough for standing. Looking once again at [2025] FCR 117 - Appeal, Chief Justice Smallfries states: “It is indeed true that individuals do not need to prove they have been specifically harmed in some discrete, tangible manner—but they still must prove some injury occurred. It should be noted that the bar for this is extremely low.” The harm in this case is clear; any citizen who does not wish to sign an anti-AI creed will be barred from political communication in the proper channels within the Aventuran Discord server, putting them at a severe disadvantage in any Aventuran election, a disadvantage they would not otherwise be at without this law. Their political communication is being hampered.

Further Motions to dismiss of this type, hanging on the idea that there is a lack of evidence, which was brought up directly by the defense in their MTD, ”the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence supporting the fact, the Plaintiff has failed to reach the standard of sufficiently supporting a claim that is required per the Court Rules & Procedures.” are very typically not allowed before the end of discovery. See Vendeka Inc. and Pepecuu v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 107, wherein the judicial officer denied a MTD for standing application as there was still a legal question at hand, which discovery and argumentation would grant more clarity to. See also Gnomewhisperer and GnomeCorp v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47, in which a MTD from the Commonwealth was denied because the Commonwealth claimed, without evidence, that their actions were not illegal. This is directly applicable to the case at hand, in which the town of Aventura is claiming that its law is not unconstitutional based on nothing more than the word of its lawyer.

Please consider these arguments when ruling on this motion to dismiss.
Thank you

 

[Franciscus]

Court is in recess pending an order on the motion to dismiss. All deadlines are tolled.

 

[gribble19]

Apologies, Your Honor, there was some confusion on the deadline. We hope that the Court will accept the following:

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Motion to Dismiss

The defense in their motion to dismiss argues that “Merely alleging that a law is unconstitutional can not in itself be enough to create a sufficiently supported valid claim”. The Commonwealth clearly alleges in its complaint that this law would bar entry to a political forum, and alleges that this restriction constitutes a violation of the rights of all Redmontians. However, the defense in an immensely convoluted way disagrees with this premise, that somehow the act does not bar access to channels where political communication is done in Aventura.

First, let's look at the Other Commission an Artist Act. Section three of this act states;



So right away, the defenses claim that The Other Commission an Artist Act does not bar these political forums is wrong; the opposite is explicitly stated in the law. Access to these channels hinges on the signing of a pledge created by this act. This allegation that “it is not true that The Other Commission an Artist Act thus bars entry to the political forum entirely” so egregiously denies the obvious verbatim fact that it nears the level of perjury.

Further, the defense states that this claim, that forums for political communication are being restricted, is not enough for standing. Looking once again at [2025] FCR 117 - Appeal, Chief Justice Smallfries states: “It is indeed true that individuals do not need to prove they have been specifically harmed in some discrete, tangible manner—but they still must prove some injury occurred. It should be noted that the bar for this is extremely low.” The harm in this case is clear; any citizen who does not wish to sign an anti-AI creed will be barred from political communication in the proper channels within the Aventuran Discord server, putting them at a severe disadvantage in any Aventuran election, a disadvantage they would not otherwise be at without this law. Their political communication is being hampered.

Further Motions to dismiss of this type, hanging on the idea that there is a lack of evidence, which was brought up directly by the defense in their MTD, ”the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence supporting the fact, the Plaintiff has failed to reach the standard of sufficiently supporting a claim that is required per the Court Rules & Procedures.” are very typically not allowed before the end of discovery. See Vendeka Inc. and Pepecuu v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 107, wherein the judicial officer denied a MTD for standing application as there was still a legal question at hand, which discovery and argumentation would grant more clarity to. See also Gnomewhisperer and GnomeCorp v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47, in which a MTD from the Commonwealth was denied because the Commonwealth claimed, without evidence, that their actions were not illegal. This is directly applicable to the case at hand, in which the town of Aventura is claiming that its law is not unconstitutional based on nothing more than the word of its lawyer.

Please consider these arguments when ruling on this motion to dismiss.
Thank you

Objection

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

Your honor,
The Plaintiff requested an extension, and this was granted. Any possible interpretation of the deadline had passed. The deadline the Defendant was going by was 48 hours from the Court informing the Plaintiff they had 48 hours to respond and a further 24 hours from that. If the Plaintiff was instead going by 24 hours from the time the extension was granted however, this deadline also would have passed. The Defendant respectfully requests that this filing that is not in line with the Court's instructions be struck.