Lawsuit: Pending sillyjustin v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 186

sillyjustin · Oct 7, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

sillyjustin

Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Homeland Security)

Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 6 October 2026 I was injured and went to the hospital for a doctor. The person who answered was shown by the server as a "Police Officer", not a Doctor, and was the officer who had handcuffed and charged me less than an hour earlier. I did not accept that officer as my doctor and asked for one I could identify. When a Medical Specialist arrived I accepted treatment immediately and was cured. The next day the Department of Homeland Security took $600.00 from my balance for "Abuse of Public Resources", the statutory maximum, without stating any reason. Asking for a doctor while injured is not a frivolous use of a government service. I ask the Court to reverse the fine and return the money.

I. PARTIES

sillyjustin (Plaintiff, self-represented)
The Commonwealth of Redmont, acting through the Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

II. FACTS

All times are server time (UTC).

Prior practice. On prior hospital visits the Plaintiff was treated by staff displaying a Doctor title. On 25 September 2026 at approximately 18:09 the Plaintiff told "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" he was sick and was answered "sure i can treat u" (P-001). On 28 September 2026 at 08:38-08:39 "Doctor Maoshi Wingdings" treated the Plaintiff for an ear infection (P-003, P-004).
The player who treated the Plaintiff as "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" on 25 September also handcuffed and charged him that day as "Officer m0fky" (P-002). That player holds police powers and displayed the title "Doctor".
The arrest. On 6 October 2026 at 18:50, the Plaintiff was handcuffed and charged by Officer StarKlower ("Cuffed by StarKlower"; "You are being charged with SpairBG Murder | SpairBG Murder ... - Officer StarKlower") (P-005).
The hospital. At 19:43:50 the Plaintiff was injured ("Ouch! You have been hurt by a rusty object.", twice) (P-006). At 19:43:57 he paged a doctor using the Department of Health monitor, and at 19:44:12 stated in chat "i need a DOCTOR".
At 19:45:01 a player responded ("hii pls follow me") displaying, in chat, "Police Officer SB NoLastName" and, in-world, the nametag "PO | StarKlower" (P-007). No Doctor title was displayed.
The Plaintiff asked for a doctor: "i want a real doctor" (19:48:32) (P-008). The responder wrote "i am a real doctor"; the Plaintiff replied "says police officer" (19:48:39-47), meaning that the responder's displayed title said "Police Officer" (P-009).
The Plaintiff continued to page the monitor while no responder displaying a Doctor title was present.
At 19:58:37 the Plaintiff stated "I am not refusing service from a doctor" and "ur not a doctor it says police" (P-010).
At 19:59:07 the responder told the Plaintiff "bro just /about me and click on jobs". The Plaintiff ran /about me, and the server returned "Please enter a valid username!" (19:59:17) (P-011). The responder then wrote "/about starklower" (19:59:18). At 19:59:27 the Plaintiff reported "i ran /about me and it says invalid username" (P-012).
At 19:59:51-57 the Plaintiff asked "who is StarKlower?" and said "ur name is sb nolastname"; the responder replied "i am" (P-013). The responder was therefore Officer StarKlower, who had arrested the Plaintiff at 18:50.
The Plaintiff then asked in global chat for any doctor online ("any docotors online", "so none online?") and said "ok will wait" (20:00:34-50) (P-014, P-014a).
At 20:01:02 a Medical Specialist (savxzFangnhv) joined the server. At 20:01:57 the Plaintiff paged the monitor; it was his last page. The Medical Specialist was at the hospital by 20:02 (P-015, P-015a) and responded to the Plaintiff at 20:02:30 (P-016).
The Medical Specialist was displayed as "MS | savxzFangnhv" and, in chat, "Medical Specialist Doge Soap McKakashi" (P-015). The Plaintiff asked in global chat "are you a doctor?", was told "stay here, brb", and replied "Thank you doc" (P-016).
At 20:03:00 the Plaintiff was "cured of blockjaw" by the Medical Specialist and thanked them ("plus ur a specialist", "youre really good at your job") (P-017).
At no point did the Plaintiff refuse treatment from anyone displaying a Doctor or Medical Specialist title.
The fine. At 20:14:26 on 6 October 2026, DHS officer Lance Iris-Holmes messaged the Plaintiff: "why were you refusing service at the hospital?" At 20:16:02 the Plaintiff replied: "I'm invoking my right under s 33(5) [sic: s 35(5)] of the Constitution not to produce self-incriminating evidence, and my right to remain silent under the Miranda Warning Act. I won't be answering questions." The message did not state that any violation was alleged, which provision was relied on, or that a penalty was being considered.
On 7 October 2026 at 15:31, the Defendant debited $600.00 from the Plaintiff's balance: "TREASURY » You have been fined $600.00 for: Outstanding Fine 1x Abuse of Public Resources" (transaction #9430080) (P-018, P-019).
The debit message named the violation but stated no conduct, date or reason. No message to the Plaintiff before the debit stated that a penalty would be imposed. The Plaintiff asked in chat at the time why he had been fined and stated that no information had been given (P-021, P-021a).
In the Plaintiff's DHS ticket that day, SB NoLastName, the responder described above, handled the ticket and stated that the fine was "due to spamming the hospital monitor" (P-020).
$600.00 is the maximum penalty for the violation: 5 Civil Penalty Units at $120 each (Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6; Part II §8(3)).
On 7 October 2026 at 18:11, the Plaintiff formally contested the fine in the same ticket, asking for it to be reversed and for review by an officer other than the one involved. At 18:16 DHS officer Jayessar Kiwi was appointed to review it. At 18:36 the officer upheld the fine: "Yes, I think Abuse of Public Resources is the appropriate civil offence. ... My reasoning is as follows: You called a doctor, one attended. You refused treatment from that doctor, but nonetheless chose to make further repeated, unnecessary calls for a doctor." DHS then requested closure of the ticket with the reason "Charges and fines stand" (P-022).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

This is a civil contest of an administrative penalty. Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §7(5) provides that an Administrative Violation, enforced by immediate penalty without trial, "can be contested before a judicial officer after enforcement." The Plaintiff has contested it with DHS first (Fact 21). The Plaintiff does not seek any change to a criminal record; he seeks only reversal of the penalty and return of the money taken.

1. Wrongful Seizure of Property - Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI §4

A government officer commits this violation by seizing property without lawful authority. An account balance is property. The violation does not occur where the seizure was made under a valid court order or a lawful statutory power.
The only power relied on is Part XIII §6 (Abuse of Public Resources), which is committed only where a person "frivolously uses a government sign service." The power exists only where that element is met.
It was not met. The Plaintiff was genuinely injured (Fact 4) and paged for a doctor. The responder who attended was displayed by the server as "Police Officer" and "PO", not as a doctor (Fact 5), and was the officer who had handcuffed and charged him less than an hour earlier (Facts 3, 10). The Plaintiff did not accept that officer as his doctor and asked for a doctor he could identify (Facts 6, 8, 11). When he ran the command the officer gave him, the server returned an error (Fact 9). His pages ended when a responder displaying a medical title attended, and he accepted treatment from that responder at once (Facts 12-14).
Declining care from a particular person is not a frivolous use of the doctor sign. The sign exists to summon a doctor, and that is what the Plaintiff used it for: a patient may ask for a doctor he can identify rather than accept treatment from the police officer who arrested him that evening. On prior visits the Plaintiff accepted treatment at once from staff displaying a Doctor title, including a player who also holds police powers (Facts 1-2).
DHS's stated reasoning on review (Fact 21) does not survive the record. "One attended": the only responder before the Medical Specialist was displayed by the server as "Police Officer" and "PO", with no Doctor title, and was the officer who had arrested the Plaintiff (Facts 3, 5, 10). "You refused treatment from that doctor": the Plaintiff declined care from a police officer who had arrested him that evening; he did not refuse treatment from anyone displaying a medical title (Fact 15), and accepted it immediately from the first such responder (Facts 13-14). "Unnecessary calls": the calls sought a doctor the Plaintiff could identify, for a real condition that was then cured, and they stopped as soon as such a doctor attended (Facts 12-14).
Part II §9(5) provides: "Administrative Violations do not require proof of harm and may only be enforced directly by a government entity. The burden of proof shall be by clear and convincing evidence." Because only a government entity may enforce an administrative violation, that burden falls on the enforcing party. The Commonwealth has itself described its position this way: "The Commonwealth is the governmental enforcing party in this action. (see Part II, § 9(5) ...)" (Commonwealth of Redmont v. kisskissy [2026] FCR 84, Post #1). Part II §4(1) provides that the Code prevails over any conflicting Act. Pages by an injured patient seeking a doctor other than the officer who had just arrested him do not prove frivolousness to that standard.
Where a DHS penalty is applied to conduct that does not meet the elements of the provision relied on, this Court has ordered the money returned: AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 51, Post #41 ("the DHS unfairly applied the charge ... The DHS is hereby instructed to ... unfine AsexualDinosaur").
The seizure was therefore without lawful authority. The remedy is restitution of $600.00.

2. In the alternative: Denial of Due Process - Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI §6

This violation is committed by a government body that makes a decision affecting the plaintiff's rights or interests and fails to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, or fails to follow procedures required by law. It does not occur where there is no statutory requirement to provide notice or an opportunity to be heard (§6(d)).
The Plaintiff accepts that the scheme permits immediate enforcement followed by a contest "before a judicial officer after enforcement" (Part II §7(5)). That right to contest presupposes that the person fined is told what is alleged against him. Here the debit named the violation but no conduct, date or reason, and no message before the debit identified a violation or said a penalty was being considered (Facts 16-18). The first explanation came, after the Plaintiff opened a ticket, from the officer whose own response was the subject of the allegation (Fact 19).
If the Court finds that §6(d) applies, the Plaintiff relies on Claim 1, which by itself supports the relief sought.

3. In the further alternative: reduction of the penalty - Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §5

If the Court finds that a violation occurred, Part II §5(1) leaves it to the judicial officer to "impose any part or the whole of the prescribed remedy or penalty", and §5(3) provides that "A judicial officer may impose a lesser remedy or penalty than the maximum provided for the violation". Part XIII §6 sets no minimum.
In exercising that discretion the Court must consider, among other things, "(b) the intent and conduct of the violator" and "(c) any aggravating or mitigating circumstances" (§5(2)). The circumstances are mitigating: the Plaintiff was genuinely injured (Fact 4); the responder was displayed as a police officer and was the officer who had arrested him that evening (Facts 3, 5, 10); the command he was given to check returned an error (Fact 9); and his pages ended when a doctor he could identify attended, whose treatment he accepted at once (Facts 12-14).
The Defendant imposed the maximum without stating any reason for choosing it (Facts 18, 20). The Plaintiff asks that any penalty be reduced and the difference returned.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

Reversal of the administrative penalty for Abuse of Public Resources (transaction #9430080), on this contest under Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §7(5) (and Part XI §6).
Restitution of $600.00 under Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI §4.
In the alternative, if the Court finds that a violation occurred, a reduced penalty under Part II §5(3) and return of the difference.
Legal fees under Redmont Civil Code Act Part III §7(2)(a), (d) and (h): 30% of the case value, subject to the $3,000.00 District Court minimum, the Plaintiff appearing pro se.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001 Prior treatment - Doctor Mofky Da Vinci (09-25).png

P-002 Same person arrests as Officer m0fky (09-25).png

P-003 Prior treatment - Doctor Maoshi Wingdings arrives (09-28).png

P-004 Prior treatment - ear infection treated (09-28).png

P-005 Arrest - cuffed and charged by StarKlower.png

P-006 Injury - hurt by rusty object (cropped).png

P-007 SB arrives - Police Officer, PO StarKlower nametag.png

P-009 I am a real doctor - says police officer.png

P-010 Not refusing service from a doctor.png

P-011 About lookup - Please enter a valid username.png

P-012 I ran about me and it says invalid username.png

P-013 SB confirms StarKlower identity.png

P-014 Will wait for a doctor - u r police.png

P-015a Doctor paged - Medical Specialist present.png

P-016 Are you a doctor - Medical Specialist responds.png

P-017 Cured of blockjaw by Medical Specialist.png

P-019 Transaction record - 600 fine (cropped).png

P-020 DHS ticket - SB handles ticket (cropped).png

P-021 Why did i just get fined for abuse of public resources.png

P-022 DHS review - contest refused, charges and fines stand.png

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 7th day of October, 2026.

Johnes · Oct 8, 2026

I will be the PO in this case.

Johnes · Oct 9, 2026

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff has filed a complaint, alleging that the Commonwealth is liable for up to $3,600 for improper execution of an administrative violation. He bases this Complaint on one primary claim and two secondary claims.

Plaintiff, in his own pleading, states that he turned down help from PO Starklower due to the individual not displaying the title of Doctor but of Police Officer. Plaintiff was then told to run the command "/about" on the individual, which was met with error. Plaintiff was then told to run the command on the username "Starklower". Plaintiff has not stated whether he did or not run this command.

Then, in Plaintiff’s pleading, Plaintiff claims that the Commonwealth charged him with Abuse of Public Resources, as defined in Part XIII § 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act (“RCCA”), with the maximum permitted penalty of 5 Civil Penalty Points, equating to $600.

In order to file and pursue a suit, standing requirements must be met. Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules & Procedures.

The Court is concerned that Plaintiff lacks sufficient standing to pursue this Complaint, especially by Part Two of Rule 2.1. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof in this action and that is on the balance of probabilities, Plaintiff's arguments in Claim One of Complaint notwithstanding. See Judicial Standards Act, §§ 2(1)(a) and 3(1)(a). Commonwealth arguments in a pleading do not supplant statute and the Court must follow the latter. See Constitution, § 14. Plaintiff must therefore prove the Commonwealth erred by imposing the penalty.

The Court is concerned that Plaintiff provided insufficient legal basis as to why the charge should be revoked. The Hospital Monitor can only summon those with a doctor title; distrustful of that, Plaintiff has the responsibility of checking for himself using the “/about” command which is absent in the Complaint as having successfully done so. It is quite common for citizens to be employed in multiple departments and to bear the insignia of a different department than the one the citizen is working for.

The Court will consider as if the charge happened when adjudicating this Order to Show Cause and will consider facts in the most favorable light to Plaintiff.

THEREFORE, the Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, as to having sufficient standing, within 48 hours.

So ordered,
Magistrate Johnes

sillyjustin · Oct 9, 2026

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff responds to the Order to Show Cause (Post #3) and submits that each part of Rule 2.1 is met.

1. Injury caused by a clear second party

The Defendant debited $600.00 from the Plaintiff's balance as a penalty for Abuse of Public Resources (Facts 17-18; P-018, P-019). The injury is personal and monetary, and the Defendant caused it by applying Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6 to him.

2. The cause of injury was against the law

The cause of the injury is the penalty. A penalty imposed where the elements of the violation are not met is a seizure "without lawful authority" (Part XI §4). Part XIII §6 has one element: that the person "frivolously uses a government sign service."
The Code does not define "frivolously", but Redmont law gives it a clear meaning:
- The same Part uses the word for a "Frivolous Government Application", committed by an application made "without genuine intent" (Part XIII §10).
- The courts treat as frivolous what has no serious purpose: a case that "was clearly a joke" (Canadian Union v. Hoobie Loobie Corporation [2021] FCR 106, Post #3), or one "devoid of any legitimate legal claim" (RiggoSoft v. Jakkuwu [2026] FCR 25, Post #33).
- Something that proves unnecessary is not frivolous for that reason. In Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86, Post #99, a prosecution withdrawn because the evidence "was not convincing enough to lead to a conviction" was held not frivolous: "this does not make the case frivolous. The case had some level of merit ... This negates frivolity." Likewise, a case that was "simply deficient" "does not meet the definition of frivolous" (TalkTuahEnjoyer3 v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 46, Post #11).
Frivolousness is therefore judged by the purpose of the use, from the user's position at the time, not with hindsight. A call made in genuine pursuit of medical care does not become frivolous because it later proves to have been unnecessary, even if a doctor was in fact already present. Unnecessary is not frivolous.
Taking the facts in the most favourable light, as the Court has said it will, the use had a genuine and serious purpose. The Plaintiff was injured and had a real condition, which was later cured (Facts 4, 14). He used the monitor to obtain medical care. His pages ended when a responder displaying a medical title attended, and he accepted treatment at once (Facts 12-14). A use with that purpose and that result is not frivolous on any of these meanings.
This distinguishes Noah7899 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 50, Post #4 and Capouti v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 49, Post #3. In each, the plaintiff's own pleading admitted every element of the charge. The Complaint here admits no element of Part XIII §6. It pleads that the Plaintiff declined care from the officer who had arrested him that evening and sought a doctor he could identify.
On the Court's concern about the /about command: Part XIII §6 imposes no duty on a patient to verify a responder's jobs before summoning a doctor. The question is whether the use was frivolous. The Complaint pleads that the Plaintiff ran the command the responder gave him and that it returned an error (Fact 9). The Court observes that citizens are often employed in several departments and bear the insignia of a department other than the one they are working for. That is the Plaintiff's point: the responder bore police insignia and had arrested him, acting as police, less than an hour earlier (Facts 3, 5, 10). Whether he could have done more to verify goes to whether his pages were frivolous. That is a question of fact for trial. It does not show, on the pleadings, that the penalty was lawful. In ruling on objections in 1ILight v. coslos [2026] DCR 180, Post #21, this Court treated a disputed central issue in the same way: it "is also an important issue to be decided in trial, therefore it is premature to sustain these objections."
The Court notes that the hospital monitor can only summon those with a doctor title. Even accepting that, the monitor does not tell the patient who was alerted or who is responding. It says only "DOH » You have called for a Doctor." (Fact 12; P-015a). Any player can be at the monitor within seconds. A player can set a home beside it and teleport back there at will. The Plaintiff, who holds no medical job, demonstrated this on 9 October 2026, standing in front of the monitor (P-023):
- /sethome hospital: "Home set to current location."
- /timestamp: "currently it is Fri Oct 09 2026 17:24:13 GMT+0000"
- /home hospital: "Teleporting to hospital."
Players without a doctor title were also present at the hospital during these events. A player arriving at the monitor therefore does not show the patient that this player is the doctor who was summoned. What the server did show the Plaintiff about this responder was the title "Police Officer" and the nametag "PO | StarKlower" (Fact 5).
Without prejudice to his position on Part II §9(5), the Plaintiff accepts, for the purposes of this Order, the Court's direction that he bears the burden on the balance of probabilities. Standing does not require him to discharge that burden now. It requires that the facts pleaded, taken in the most favourable light, show a cause of injury that was against the law. They do.
The Code itself provides for this contest. An Administrative Violation "can be contested before a judicial officer after enforcement" (Part II §7(5)). On assenting to an amendment of the Code, the President stated that "A player fined under this section retains the right to contest that fine before a judicial officer" (Redmont Civil Code Act, Post #30). Contests of DHS penalties have proceeded in this Court: AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 51, Post #41 (penalty reversed where its elements were not met); Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 148, Post #3 (administrative fines; summons issued); RainbowHorsecake v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 138, Post #2 (Part XIII administrative fine, contested with DHS first, as the Plaintiff has done (Fact 21)).

3. A remedy is available on a favourable decision

Restitution of the $600.00 (Part XI §4) and reversal of the penalty on this contest (Part II §7(5)).
In the alternative, if the Court finds that a violation occurred, a reduced penalty. Part II §5(1) leaves it to the judicial officer to "impose any part or the whole of the prescribed remedy or penalty", and §5(3) provides that "A judicial officer may impose a lesser remedy or penalty than the maximum provided for the violation." Part XIII §6 provides "Up to 5 Civil Penalty Units" with no minimum, and the Defendant imposed the maximum without stating any reason (Facts 18, 20). This also distinguishes Noah7899, where the Court could not "reduce the crime to a lesser sentence" because the charge carried a fixed penalty.

The Plaintiff therefore respectfully asks the Court to find that standing is established, to discharge the Order to Show Cause, and to issue a summons to the Defendant.

In the alternative, if the Court considers the Complaint deficient in any respect, the Plaintiff asks for leave to amend rather than dismissal, as the Court allowed in .Farmerkalechip v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 93, Post #2 ("ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, and amend accordingly") and 1ILight v. coslos [2026] DCR 180, Post #4.

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

Johnes · Oct 9, 2026

Writ of Summons

@Superwoops (or any other individual authorized to represent the Commonwealth) is hereby commanded to appear before the District Court in the case of sillyjustin v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 186.

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.

Superwoops · Oct 11, 2026

The AG is present.

Johnes · Oct 11, 2026

Superwoops said:
The AG is present.

48 hours for an answer.

Superwoops · Oct 12, 2026

We request a 48-hour extension.

Johnes · Oct 12, 2026

Superwoops said:
We request a 48-hour extension.

Sure, granted, but please do file it in the new deadline.

Johnes · Oct 14, 2026

@Superwoops I'll give you a 24-hour extension sua sponte. Please file it in the new deadline or we will enter default.

Superwoops · Oct 14, 2026

Answer to Complaint

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

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Does not contest that on prior hospital visits the Plaintiff was treated by staff displaying a Doctor title. On 25 September 2026 at approximately 18:09 the Plaintiff told "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" he was sick and was answered "sure i can treat u" (P-001). On 28 September 2026 at 08:38-08:39 "Doctor Maoshi Wingdings" treated the Plaintiff for an ear infection (P-003, P-004).
Does not contest that the player who treated the Plaintiff as "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" on 25 September also handcuffed and charged him that day as "Officer m0fky" (P-002). That player holds police powers and displayed the title "Doctor".
Does not contest that on 6 October 2026 at 18:50, the Plaintiff was handcuffed and charged by Officer StarKlower ("Cuffed by StarKlower"; "You are being charged with SpairBG Murder | SpairBG Murder ... - Officer StarKlower") (P-005).
Affirms that at 19:43:50 the Plaintiff was injured ("Ouch! You have been hurt by a rusty object.", twice) (P-006). At 19:43:57 he paged a doctor using the Department of Health monitor, and at 19:44:12 stated in chat "i need a DOCTOR".
Affirms that at 19:45:01 a player responded ("hii pls follow me") displaying, in chat, "Police Officer SB NoLastName" and, in-world, the nametag "PO | StarKlower" (P-007). No Doctor title was displayed.
Does not contest that the Plaintiff asked for a doctor: "i want a real doctor" (19:48:32) (P-008). The responder wrote "i am a real doctor"; the Plaintiff replied "says police officer" (19:48:39-47), meaning that the responder's displayed title said "Police Officer" (P-009).
Affirms that the Plaintiff continued to page the monitor while no responder displaying a Doctor title was present.
Does not contest that at 19:58:37 the Plaintiff stated "I am not refusing service from a doctor" and "ur not a doctor it says police" (P-010).
Does not contest that at 19:59:07 the responder told the Plaintiff "bro just /about me and click on jobs". The Plaintiff ran /about me, and the server returned "Please enter a valid username!" (19:59:17) (P-011). The responder then wrote "/about starklower" (19:59:18). At 19:59:27 the Plaintiff reported "i ran /about me and it says invalid username" (P-012).
Does not contest that at 19:59:51-57 the Plaintiff asked "who is StarKlower?" and said "ur name is sb nolastname"; the responder replied "i am" (P-013). The responder was therefore Officer StarKlower, who had arrested the Plaintiff at 18:50.
Does not contest that the Plaintiff then asked in global chat for any doctor online ("any docotors online", "so none online?") and said "ok will wait" (20:00:34-50) (P-014, P-014a).
Does not contest that at 20:01:02 a Medical Specialist (savxzFangnhv) joined the server. At 20:01:57 the Plaintiff paged the monitor; it was his last page. The Medical Specialist was at the hospital by 20:02 (P-015, P-015a) and responded to the Plaintiff at 20:02:30 (P-016).
Does not contest that the Medical Specialist was displayed as "MS | savxzFangnhv" and, in chat, "Medical Specialist Doge Soap McKakashi" (P-015). The Plaintiff asked in global chat "are you a doctor?", was told "stay here, brb", and replied "Thank you doc" (P-016).
Does not contest that at 20:03:00 the Plaintiff was "cured of blockjaw" by the Medical Specialist and thanked them ("plus ur a specialist", "youre really good at your job") (P-017).
Does not contest that at no point did the Plaintiff refuse treatment from anyone displaying a Doctor or Medical Specialist title.
Does not contest that at 20:14:26 on 6 October 2026, DHS officer Lance Iris-Holmes messaged the Plaintiff: "why were you refusing service at the hospital?" At 20:16:02 the Plaintiff replied: "I'm invoking my right under s 33(5) [sic: s 35(5)] of the Constitution not to produce self-incriminating evidence, and my right to remain silent under the Miranda Warning Act. I won't be answering questions." The message did not state that any violation was alleged, which provision was relied on, or that a penalty was being considered.
Does not contest that on 7 October 2026 at 15:31, the Defendant debited $600.00 from the Plaintiff's balance: "TREASURY » You have been fined $600.00 for: Outstanding Fine 1x Abuse of Public Resources" (transaction #9430080) (P-018, P-019).
Does not contest that the debit message named the violation but stated no conduct, date or reason. No message to the Plaintiff before the debit stated that a penalty would be imposed. The Plaintiff asked in chat at the time why he had been fined and stated that no information had been given (P-021, P-021a).
Does not contest that in the Plaintiff's DHS ticket that day, SB NoLastName, the responder described above, handled the ticket and stated that the fine was "due to spamming the hospital monitor" (P-020).
$600.00 is the maximum penalty for the violation: 5 Civil Penalty Units at $120 each (Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6; Part II §8(3)).
Does not contest that on 7 October 2026 at 18:11, the Plaintiff formally contested the fine in the same ticket, asking for it to be reversed and for review by an officer other than the one involved. At 18:16 DHS officer Jayessar Kiwi was appointed to review it. At 18:36 the officer upheld the fine: "Yes, I think Abuse of Public Resources is the appropriate civil offence. ... My reasoning is as follows: You called a doctor, one attended. You refused treatment from that doctor, but nonetheless chose to make further repeated, unnecessary calls for a doctor." DHS then requested closure of the ticket with the reason "Charges and fines stand" (P-022).

II. DEFENCES

a. The administrative penalty is completely justified, as a reasonable person should assume that if a person holds multiple jobs/titles, only one will appear. Not once did the Plaintiff ask to see the Doctor's license, and the DOH Policy - Employment Policy & Code of Conduct does not require always displaying the Doctor title when tending to patients.

b. Notwithstanding the above, the Plaintiff repeatedly pressed the monitor, which fulfils the evidentiary threshold for the administrative violation Abuse of Public Resources by frivolously using a government sign service. Any press after the initial one is frivolous and holds no purpose (save a few exceptions that are not present in this case), as all Doctors have all been notified, one has responded and the material circumstances behind the Plaintiff's ailment have not changed. Since a genuine illness does not ever justify subsequent presses, the evidentiary burden is met.

Superwoops · Oct 14, 2026

Johnes said:
@Superwoops I'll give you a 24-hour extension sua sponte. Please file it in the new deadline or we will enter default.

The Attorney General notes that this extension, while appreciated, was not necessary and not used by the CW as we met the original deadline of 48 + 48hrs as requested by us.

Johnes · Oct 14, 2026

Superwoops said:
Answer to Complaint

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

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Does not contest that on prior hospital visits the Plaintiff was treated by staff displaying a Doctor title. On 25 September 2026 at approximately 18:09 the Plaintiff told "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" he was sick and was answered "sure i can treat u" (P-001). On 28 September 2026 at 08:38-08:39 "Doctor Maoshi Wingdings" treated the Plaintiff for an ear infection (P-003, P-004).

Does not contest that the player who treated the Plaintiff as "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" on 25 September also handcuffed and charged him that day as "Officer m0fky" (P-002). That player holds police powers and displayed the title "Doctor".

Does not contest that on 6 October 2026 at 18:50, the Plaintiff was handcuffed and charged by Officer StarKlower ("Cuffed by StarKlower"; "You are being charged with SpairBG Murder | SpairBG Murder ... - Officer StarKlower") (P-005).

Affirms that at 19:43:50 the Plaintiff was injured ("Ouch! You have been hurt by a rusty object.", twice) (P-006). At 19:43:57 he paged a doctor using the Department of Health monitor, and at 19:44:12 stated in chat "i need a DOCTOR".

Affirms that at 19:45:01 a player responded ("hii pls follow me") displaying, in chat, "Police Officer SB NoLastName" and, in-world, the nametag "PO | StarKlower" (P-007). No Doctor title was displayed.

Does not contest that the Plaintiff asked for a doctor: "i want a real doctor" (19:48:32) (P-008). The responder wrote "i am a real doctor"; the Plaintiff replied "says police officer" (19:48:39-47), meaning that the responder's displayed title said "Police Officer" (P-009).

Affirms that the Plaintiff continued to page the monitor while no responder displaying a Doctor title was present.

Does not contest that at 19:58:37 the Plaintiff stated "I am not refusing service from a doctor" and "ur not a doctor it says police" (P-010).

Does not contest that at 19:59:07 the responder told the Plaintiff "bro just /about me and click on jobs". The Plaintiff ran /about me, and the server returned "Please enter a valid username!" (19:59:17) (P-011). The responder then wrote "/about starklower" (19:59:18). At 19:59:27 the Plaintiff reported "i ran /about me and it says invalid username" (P-012).

Does not contest that at 19:59:51-57 the Plaintiff asked "who is StarKlower?" and said "ur name is sb nolastname"; the responder replied "i am" (P-013). The responder was therefore Officer StarKlower, who had arrested the Plaintiff at 18:50.

Does not contest that the Plaintiff then asked in global chat for any doctor online ("any docotors online", "so none online?") and said "ok will wait" (20:00:34-50) (P-014, P-014a).

Does not contest that at 20:01:02 a Medical Specialist (savxzFangnhv) joined the server. At 20:01:57 the Plaintiff paged the monitor; it was his last page. The Medical Specialist was at the hospital by 20:02 (P-015, P-015a) and responded to the Plaintiff at 20:02:30 (P-016).

Does not contest that the Medical Specialist was displayed as "MS | savxzFangnhv" and, in chat, "Medical Specialist Doge Soap McKakashi" (P-015). The Plaintiff asked in global chat "are you a doctor?", was told "stay here, brb", and replied "Thank you doc" (P-016).

Does not contest that at 20:03:00 the Plaintiff was "cured of blockjaw" by the Medical Specialist and thanked them ("plus ur a specialist", "youre really good at your job") (P-017).

Does not contest that at no point did the Plaintiff refuse treatment from anyone displaying a Doctor or Medical Specialist title.

Does not contest that at 20:14:26 on 6 October 2026, DHS officer Lance Iris-Holmes messaged the Plaintiff: "why were you refusing service at the hospital?" At 20:16:02 the Plaintiff replied: "I'm invoking my right under s 33(5) [sic: s 35(5)] of the Constitution not to produce self-incriminating evidence, and my right to remain silent under the Miranda Warning Act. I won't be answering questions." The message did not state that any violation was alleged, which provision was relied on, or that a penalty was being considered.

Does not contest that on 7 October 2026 at 15:31, the Defendant debited $600.00 from the Plaintiff's balance: "TREASURY » You have been fined $600.00 for: Outstanding Fine 1x Abuse of Public Resources" (transaction #9430080) (P-018, P-019).

Does not contest that the debit message named the violation but stated no conduct, date or reason. No message to the Plaintiff before the debit stated that a penalty would be imposed. The Plaintiff asked in chat at the time why he had been fined and stated that no information had been given (P-021, P-021a).

Does not contest that in the Plaintiff's DHS ticket that day, SB NoLastName, the responder described above, handled the ticket and stated that the fine was "due to spamming the hospital monitor" (P-020).

$600.00 is the maximum penalty for the violation: 5 Civil Penalty Units at $120 each (Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6; Part II §8(3)).

Does not contest that on 7 October 2026 at 18:11, the Plaintiff formally contested the fine in the same ticket, asking for it to be reversed and for review by an officer other than the one involved. At 18:16 DHS officer Jayessar Kiwi was appointed to review it. At 18:36 the officer upheld the fine: "Yes, I think Abuse of Public Resources is the appropriate civil offence. ... My reasoning is as follows: You called a doctor, one attended. You refused treatment from that doctor, but nonetheless chose to make further repeated, unnecessary calls for a doctor." DHS then requested closure of the ticket with the reason "Charges and fines stand" (P-022).

II. DEFENCES

a. The administrative penalty is completely justified, as a reasonable person should assume that if a person holds multiple jobs/titles, only one will appear. Not once did the Plaintiff ask to see the Doctor's license, and the DOH Policy - Employment Policy & Code of Conduct does not require always displaying the Doctor title when tending to patients.

b. Notwithstanding the above, the Plaintiff repeatedly pressed the monitor, which fulfils the evidentiary threshold for the administrative violation Abuse of Public Resources by frivolously using a government sign service. Any press after the initial one is frivolous and holds no purpose (save a few exceptions that are not present in this case), as all Doctors have all been notified, one has responded and the material circumstances behind the Plaintiff's ailment have not changed. Since a genuine illness does not ever justify subsequent presses, the evidentiary burden is met.

Thank you, discovery is open for 5 days.

sillyjustin · Oct 15, 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES, EVIDENCE AND WITNESS LIST

I. INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following questions for the Defendant, which the Defendant must answer within 48 hours. All times are server time (UTC).

Defence (a) of the Answer to Complaint (Post #11) states that only one of a person's titles will appear. Between 19:45 and 20:02 UTC on 6 October 2026, did StarKlower hold the title "Doctor", and could StarKlower have chosen to display it, both in chat and on the in-world nametag above StarKlower's head, instead of "Police Officer" and "PO"?
Is a patient required to accept treatment from the doctor who responds to their page, or to ask to see that doctor's licence first? If so, under what law or Department of Health policy?
When a doctor comes online while a patient is waiting at the hospital, how does that doctor learn that the patient needs treatment?
Which players received the page the Plaintiff made from the Department of Health monitor at 20:01:57 UTC on 6 October 2026, and what did each of them do after receiving it?
What are the "few exceptions" referred to in Defence (b) of the Answer to Complaint (Post #11), under which a press of the monitor after the initial one is not frivolous?

II. EVIDENCE

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

P-023: The Plaintiff, who holds no medical job, sets a home in front of the Department of Health monitor and teleports back to it (9 October 2026, 17:24 UTC). Commands and server replies: /sethome hospital: "Home set to current location."; /timestamp: "currently it is Fri Oct 09 2026 17:24:13 GMT+0000"; /home hospital: "Teleporting to hospital." Previously attached to the Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause (Post #4); resubmitted under Rule 4.2.
P-024: Typing /setprefix offers a player each of their titles to choose from (here the Plaintiff's: "Firearms Licence", Accountant, Armourer, Entrepreneur, Fisher, Solicitor, Treasury), with /timestamp "Thu Oct 15 2026 03:14:06 GMT+0000". A player chooses which title is displayed. The command was typed but not sent.
P-025: The Plaintiff runs /setprefix twice. The server replies "Your prefix has been set to: Fisher" and his next chat message shows "Fisher sillyjustin"; it then replies "Your prefix has been set to: Solicitor" and his next message shows "Solicitor sillyjustin". /timestamp: "Thu Oct 15 2026 03:27:13 GMT+0000". The displayed title changes at once to whichever title the player chooses.
P-026a and P-026b: Screenshots taken by another player, Zeynard, looking at the Plaintiff. At 03:43:52 UTC on 15 October 2026 the Plaintiff's in-world nametag reads "FI | silly.justin" (Fisher); at 03:44:42 UTC, 50 seconds later, after /setprefix, it reads "SL | silly.justin" (Solicitor). Each screenshot shows Zeynard's /timestamp. The overhead tag that other players see changes as quickly as the chat title; compare "PO | StarKlower" (P-007).
P-027: The government transaction log, as published by the Department of State in its Budget Reports, records one fine for Abuse of Public Resources between October 2025 and April 2026: "DHS » Gooseguy1934 has been fined $100 by pricelessAgrari for Abuse of Public Resources." (Budget Report - December 2025).
P-028: The Budget Reports for February, March and April 2026, covering the period after the Redmont Civil Code Act took effect, record no fine for Abuse of Public Resources (February 2026; March 2026; April 2026).

III. WITNESS LIST

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Plaintiff announces the following witness:

MadMan127 ("MadMan Olive-Garden"), Doctor, Department of Health. To testify to the general practice of doctors regarding the title they display when attending patients.

P-023 sethome, timestamp, home at the monitor (9 Oct 2026).png

P-024 setprefix choices, timestamp (15 Oct 2026 03-14 UTC).png

P-025 setprefix switches chat title, timestamp (15 Oct 2026 03-27 UTC).png

P-026a nametag FI (Fisher) seen by Zeynard (15 Oct 2026 03-43 UTC).png

P-026b nametag SL (Solicitor) seen by Zeynard (15 Oct 2026 03-44 UTC).png

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 15th day of October, 2026.

sillyjustin · Oct 15, 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests that the Defendant produce the following:

The record of the penalty in transaction #9430080 ($600.00, 7 October 2026): the issuing officer, the report or ticket that led to it, the evidence relied on, and any record of why 5 Civil Penalty Units were chosen, other than the ticket messages already in evidence (P-020, P-022).
Any Department of Homeland Security policy, guidance or instruction on when to impose the Abuse of Public Resources penalty and how to set its amount.
The entries in the government transaction log recording fines for Abuse of Public Resources between 1 May 2026 and 7 October 2026, showing the date and amount of each, with names redacted.
For each fine identified in item 3, a short summary of the conduct penalised and the reason for the amount chosen, with names redacted.

Relevance

The Attorney General has already approved the release of items 1 and 2 in response to the Plaintiff's Freedom of Information request.
Items 1 and 2 go to whether the element of Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6 was met, and to the amount of the penalty
under Part II §5 (Claim 3).
Item 3 goes to the amount of the penalty and the consistency of its enforcement (Claim 3). The Department of State published these entries in its Budget Reports until April 2026 (P-027, P-028), but has not published them since. The latest report states: "As the Department of State is still updating procedures in relation to the transaction reports, parts of the report are not released yet. They will be released at a later date." (Budget Report - September 2026).
Item 4 shows whether comparable conduct received comparable penalties. Part II §5 lets a judicial officer impose "any part or the whole" of a penalty and "a lesser remedy or penalty than the maximum", so the Court can only judge whether the maximum fits this case by seeing what conduct has drawn which amount. A date and amount alone (item 3) do not show that. Item 4 is limited to the fines found under item 3 and asks only for a short summary, so it adds little burden. The record suggests there will be few such fines, if any: the published log shows one fine for this violation between October 2025 and April 2026, and none from February to April 2026 (P-027, P-028).

Precedent

The courts have ordered the Commonwealth to produce its internal records of the decision under challenge: Discord entries and tickets concerning an eviction (YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Post #61), and an officer's logs and commands relating to the Plaintiff's arrest (Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42, Post #35). Material ordered under Rule 4.7 "must be given by the opposing party ... under sanction of contempt of court and perjury" (Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86, Post #44). The items requested here are not already in the record.

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 15th day of October, 2026.

sillyjustin · Friday at 12:37 AM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Plaintiff submits the following evidence. Each item is in-game global chat as relayed by the Server app to the #global-chat channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord server. Times are UTC.

P-029: On 4 August 2026, StarKlower asks how to change the occupation shown on their nametag, and staff answer:
- 00:12:55 "Recruit StarKlower » how do i change which occupation showns on my nametag" (Discord Message Link)
- 00:13:00 "[Staff] Archivist StrawberrySara » ./setprefix" (Discord Message Link)
- 00:13:07 "Recruit StarKlower » thanks sara" (Discord Message Link)
P-030: StarKlower's next message in global chat, on 7 August 2026 at 20:58:55: "Trainee Doctor StarKlower » oli how many chickens did you hatch" (Discord Message Link).

P-029 StarKlower asks how to change nametag occupation, staff reply setprefix (4 Aug 2026 00-1...png

P-030 next message as Trainee Doctor StarKlower (7 Aug 2026 20-58 UTC).png

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 16th day of October, 2026.

sillyjustin · Sunday at 12:18 AM

Motion

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

Your Honour,

On 15 October 2026 at 04:59 UTC the Plaintiff served five interrogatories (Post #14) under Rule 4.8, and at 05:58 UTC a request for documents (Post #15) under Rule 4.7. Rule 4.8 requires objections "within 24 hours" and answers "within 48 hours of being asked". The Defendant has not objected, answered or produced anything, and the time to answer expired on 17 October 2026 at 04:59 UTC.

The Defendant has not contacted the Plaintiff about the interrogatories or the request for documents, and has not asked the Court or the Plaintiff for more time.

The Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to:

Order the Defendant to answer the interrogatories in Post #14, and to produce the material requested in Post #15, within 24 hours.
If the Defendant does not comply, draw adverse inferences from the omission, as the Court did in Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 166, Post #25 ("Adverse inferences may be drawn in omission"), including that:
- StarKlower held the title "Doctor" and could have displayed it instead of "Police Officer" (Interrogatory 1);
- no law or Department of Health policy requires a patient to accept the responding doctor or to ask to see that doctor's licence (Interrogatory 2);
- a doctor who comes online learns that a patient is waiting from the patient's page, and the Plaintiff's page at 20:01:57 UTC reached the Medical Specialist who then treated him (Interrogatories 3 and 4);
- a page made after a new doctor comes online is an exception to Defence (b) (Interrogatory 5).
Extend discovery under Rule 4.4 by the time needed for the Defendant to comply, so that the Plaintiff can enter the answers and material before discovery closes.

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 18th day of October, 2026.

Johnes · Sunday at 5:47 AM

sillyjustin said:
Motion

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

Your Honour,

On 15 October 2026 at 04:59 UTC the Plaintiff served five interrogatories (Post #14) under Rule 4.8, and at 05:58 UTC a request for documents (Post #15) under Rule 4.7. Rule 4.8 requires objections "within 24 hours" and answers "within 48 hours of being asked". The Defendant has not objected, answered or produced anything, and the time to answer expired on 17 October 2026 at 04:59 UTC.

The Defendant has not contacted the Plaintiff about the interrogatories or the request for documents, and has not asked the Court or the Plaintiff for more time.

The Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to:

Order the Defendant to answer the interrogatories in Post #14, and to produce the material requested in Post #15, within 24 hours.

If the Defendant does not comply, draw adverse inferences from the omission, as the Court did in Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 166, Post #25 ("Adverse inferences may be drawn in omission"), including that:

StarKlower held the title "Doctor" and could have displayed it instead of "Police Officer" (Interrogatory 1);

no law or Department of Health policy requires a patient to accept the responding doctor or to ask to see that doctor's licence (Interrogatory 2);

a doctor who comes online learns that a patient is waiting from the patient's page, and the Plaintiff's page at 20:01:57 UTC reached the Medical Specialist who then treated him (Interrogatories 3 and 4);

a page made after a new doctor comes online is an exception to Defence (b) (Interrogatory 5).

Extend discovery under Rule 4.4 by the time needed for the Defendant to comply, so that the Plaintiff can enter the answers and material before discovery closes.

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 18th day of October, 2026.

I'll give the CW 48 hours to respond, discovery is extended appropriately to fit the deadline. This applies to all pending compel requests before the Court.

The right to object to such requests is extended 24 hours from this post.

No further extensions will be granted at this time.

Superwoops · Tuesday at 9:22 AM

sillyjustin said:
Defence (a) of the Answer to Complaint (Post #11) states that only one of a person's titles will appear. Between 19:45 and 20:02 UTC on 6 October 2026, did StarKlower hold the title "Doctor", and could StarKlower have chosen to display it, both in chat and on the in-world nametag above StarKlower's head, instead of "Police Officer" and "PO"?

Is a patient required to accept treatment from the doctor who responds to their page, or to ask to see that doctor's licence first? If so, under what law or Department of Health policy?

When a doctor comes online while a patient is waiting at the hospital, how does that doctor learn that the patient needs treatment?

Which players received the page the Plaintiff made from the Department of Health monitor at 20:01:57 UTC on 6 October 2026, and what did each of them do after receiving it?

What are the "few exceptions" referred to in Defence (b) of the Answer to Complaint (Post #11), under which a press of the monitor after the initial one is not frivolous?

Apologies, your honour. I saw your message and it said it was sent "Yesterday" last night. I assumed I had over 24hrs left in Discovery.

1. They held the job "Doctor". It is not in the Commonwealth's knowledge whether they displayed it, but they could have chosen to display it.
2. The patient is not required, as in forced, to accept treatment in any case, nor are they required to request the Doctor's license.
3. There is a feature that relays all DOH monitor alerts to all Doctors.
4. All DOH employees did, because of response three. It is impossible to know what every single Doctor did after that.
5. For example, if a significant amount of time has passed after the first press, and no response has come, a second press may be warranted. Also, sometimes a Doctor requires another press for the plugin to properly recognise the patient.

Superwoops · Tuesday at 9:28 AM

sillyjustin said:
The record of the penalty in transaction #9430080 ($600.00, 7 October 2026): the issuing officer, the report or ticket that led to it, the evidence relied on, and any record of why 5 Civil Penalty Units were chosen, other than the ticket messages already in evidence (P-020, P-022).

Any Department of Homeland Security policy, guidance or instruction on when to impose the Abuse of Public Resources penalty and how to set its amount.

The entries in the government transaction log recording fines for Abuse of Public Resources between 1 May 2026 and 7 October 2026, showing the date and amount of each, with names redacted.

For each fine identified in item 3, a short summary of the conduct penalised and the reason for the amount chosen, with names redacted.

See evidence below. There is no clear guide on what fine to choose.
There is no direct policy or guidance on what to impose the penalty for on any civil violation that says "Up to". DHS normally charges the maximum, as most civil violations don't have a real "scaling" possibility.
DHS only recently got access to their government transaction log yesterday. From what is available to them: 6 October 2026 - $600, 6 October 2026 - $600
The conduct penalised is Abuse of Public Resources, the Commonwealth is not comfortable handing out any further information if not under Court Order.

Screenshot 2026-10-20 at 10.34.53 am.png

Superwoops · Tuesday at 9:29 AM

Defence submits the following evidence, if the Court would allow:

Superwoops · Tuesday at 9:33 AM

And this:

WhatsApp Image 2026-10-18 at 17.01.28.jpeg

sillyjustin · Tuesday at 10:09 AM

Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff objects to D-001, D-002, D-003 and D-004 (Posts #21 and #22) and asks that they be struck, or in the alternative that the Court not rely on them.

I. The evidence was filed after discovery closed

On 18 October 2026 at 09:47 UTC the Court gave the Defendant 48 hours, extended discovery "appropriately to fit the deadline", and stated: "No further extensions will be granted at this time." (Post #18). Discovery therefore closed on 20 October 2026 at 09:47 UTC.
The Defendant filed D-001 to D-003 at 13:29 UTC and D-004 at 13:33 UTC, almost four hours after discovery closed, "if the Court would allow".
Rule 4.2 admits only material in the complaint, the answer, an amendment, or "a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible."
The courts apply this strictly: "evidence must not be submitted outside of discovery, unless it was otherwise ordered to be produce[d]" (Monzter9697 v. Mistery3597 [2026] DCR 65, Post #26); "This Court will not rely on D-001/D-002 ... on verdict" (The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200 [2026] DCR 154, Post #126); facts not brought up in discovery "will be disregarded pursuant to Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2", and counsel was "warned to avoid ambushing opposing parties" (Vanguard Co. v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, Post #59).
D-001 to D-004 were not ordered to be produced. The Plaintiff's Rule 4.7 request did not ask for them. They are new evidence the Defendant chose to volunteer after the deadline.

II. The Defendant has already had every chance

Answer to Complaint: an extension on request (Post #9), then a further 24-hour extension the Court gave on its own motion (Post #10).
Interrogatories (Post #14) and the Rule 4.7 request (Post #15): no objection within 24 hours and no answer within 48 hours, as Rule 4.8 requires.
After the Plaintiff's motion to compel (Post #17), the Court gave a further 48 hours and reopened the right to object (Post #18). The Defendant missed that deadline too.
The Defendant says it "saw your message and it said it was sent 'Yesterday' last night" (Post #19). The reactions on Post #18 show that the Attorney General reacted to the Court's order on 19 October 2026 at 15:01 UTC, almost 19 hours before the deadline.
The Defendant was represented throughout by the Attorney General, who has sat as a judge of this Court. Reading "Yesterday" on a post does not change a deadline stated in hours.
The Plaintiff, who is self-represented, has met every deadline in this case.

The courts hold the Commonwealth to its deadlines. When the Commonwealth failed to file an answer in time, the Supreme Court held that it "has forfeited its right to file an answer to the complaint filed" (MilkCrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5, Post #11). This Court has told a party that after a final extension "you forfeit your right" to the step missed (1ILight v. coslos [2026] DCR 180, Post #64). Admitting new evidence now would reward the missed deadline and leave the Plaintiff no discovery period in which to answer it.

III. In the alternative, D-001 and D-004 prove nothing about 6 October

D-001 is an editable text log with no date. Under Rule 4.6, such logs "are presumed correct unless challenged." The Plaintiff challenges it.
D-004 does not verify D-001. In it, the Attorney General told staff the logs "should have happened on 25 September 2026". The events in this case occurred on 6 October 2026. D-004 records no check of the logs by staff. Staff replied only: "Assumption is that they are true unless challenged." That is the same presumption as Rule 4.6, not a verification, and the Plaintiff challenges it.

IV. What the Plaintiff does not object to

The Plaintiff does not object to the Defendant's interrogatory answers (Post #19) or to DISCOVERY-001 (Post #20). Those were produced under the Court's order (Post #18) in response to the Plaintiff's own requests, and the Plaintiff asks that they be received despite their lateness.

V. Item 4 was not produced

The Defendant declined item 4 of the Plaintiff's Rule 4.7 request "if not under Court Order" (Post #20). Post #18 ordered production of "all pending compel requests", and no objection was made within the time the Court allowed. The Plaintiff asks the Court to order item 4 produced within 24 hours, or to draw the inference that the Defendant imposes the maximum penalty for this violation without regard to the conduct, which is consistent with its statement that "DHS normally charges the maximum" (Post #20).

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 20th day of October, 2026.

Superwoops · Tuesday at 10:15 AM

sillyjustin said:
Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff objects to D-001, D-002, D-003 and D-004 (Posts #21 and #22) and asks that they be struck, or in the alternative that the Court not rely on them.

I. The evidence was filed after discovery closed

On 18 October 2026 at 09:47 UTC the Court gave the Defendant 48 hours, extended discovery "appropriately to fit the deadline", and stated: "No further extensions will be granted at this time." (Post #18). Discovery therefore closed on 20 October 2026 at 09:47 UTC.

The Defendant filed D-001 to D-003 at 13:29 UTC and D-004 at 13:33 UTC, almost four hours after discovery closed, "if the Court would allow".

Rule 4.2 admits only material in the complaint, the answer, an amendment, or "a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible."

The courts apply this strictly: "evidence must not be submitted outside of discovery, unless it was otherwise ordered to be produce[d]" (Monzter9697 v. Mistery3597 [2026] DCR 65, Post #26); "This Court will not rely on D-001/D-002 ... on verdict" (The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200 [2026] DCR 154, Post #126); facts not brought up in discovery "will be disregarded pursuant to Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2", and counsel was "warned to avoid ambushing opposing parties" (Vanguard Co. v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, Post #59).

D-001 to D-004 were not ordered to be produced. The Plaintiff's Rule 4.7 request did not ask for them. They are new evidence the Defendant chose to volunteer after the deadline.

II. The Defendant has already had every chance

Answer to Complaint: an extension on request (Post #9), then a further 24-hour extension the Court gave on its own motion (Post #10).

Interrogatories (Post #14) and the Rule 4.7 request (Post #15): no objection within 24 hours and no answer within 48 hours, as Rule 4.8 requires.

After the Plaintiff's motion to compel (Post #17), the Court gave a further 48 hours and reopened the right to object (Post #18). The Defendant missed that deadline too.

The Defendant says it "saw your message and it said it was sent 'Yesterday' last night" (Post #19). The reactions on Post #18 show that the Attorney General reacted to the Court's order on 19 October 2026 at 15:01 UTC, almost 19 hours before the deadline.

The Defendant was represented throughout by the Attorney General, who has sat as a judge of this Court. Reading "Yesterday" on a post does not change a deadline stated in hours.

The Plaintiff, who is self-represented, has met every deadline in this case.

The courts hold the Commonwealth to its deadlines. When the Commonwealth failed to file an answer in time, the Supreme Court held that it "has forfeited its right to file an answer to the complaint filed" (MilkCrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5, Post #11). This Court has told a party that after a final extension "you forfeit your right" to the step missed (1ILight v. coslos [2026] DCR 180, Post #64). Admitting new evidence now would reward the missed deadline and leave the Plaintiff no discovery period in which to answer it.

III. In the alternative, D-001 and D-004 prove nothing about 6 October

D-001 is an editable text log with no date. Under Rule 4.6, such logs "are presumed correct unless challenged." The Plaintiff challenges it.

D-004 does not verify D-001. In it, the Attorney General told staff the logs "should have happened on 25 September 2026". The events in this case occurred on 6 October 2026. D-004 records no check of the logs by staff. Staff replied only: "Assumption is that they are true unless challenged." That is the same presumption as Rule 4.6, not a verification, and the Plaintiff challenges it.

IV. What the Plaintiff does not object to

The Plaintiff does not object to the Defendant's interrogatory answers (Post #19) or to DISCOVERY-001 (Post #20). Those were produced under the Court's order (Post #18) in response to the Plaintiff's own requests, and the Plaintiff asks that they be received despite their lateness.

V. Item 4 was not produced

The Defendant declined item 4 of the Plaintiff's Rule 4.7 request "if not under Court Order" (Post #20). Post #18 ordered production of "all pending compel requests", and no objection was made within the time the Court allowed. The Plaintiff asks the Court to order item 4 produced within 24 hours, or to draw the inference that the Defendant imposes the maximum penalty for this violation without regard to the conduct, which is consistent with its statement that "DHS normally charges the maximum" (Post #20).

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 20th day of October, 2026.

The Defence relies on the Court's good graces and its interpretive faculties of the Information - Court Rules and Procedures under Rule 1.2.

As for Item V, the Commonwealth has no issue in providing this material should the Court issue a Court Order. If this is the case, we ask that Discovery is extended.

sillyjustin · Tuesday at 10:26 AM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPPOSITIONAL STATEMENT - EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY

Your Honour,

Under Rule 4.4, the Plaintiff states his position on the Defendant's request to extend discovery (Post #24):

The Plaintiff opposes any extension or reopening of discovery for any purpose other than item 4. The Defendant should not be permitted to submit D-001 to D-004 again, or any other new evidence, after the deadline in Post #18 ("No further extensions will be granted at this time").
The Plaintiff does not oppose a short period for the Defendant to produce item 4 of his Rule 4.7 request ONLY. That item was already covered by the Court's order in Post #18.

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 20th day of October, 2026.

Johnes · Tuesday at 1:06 PM

sillyjustin said:
Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff objects to D-001, D-002, D-003 and D-004 (Posts #21 and #22) and asks that they be struck, or in the alternative that the Court not rely on them.

I. The evidence was filed after discovery closed

On 18 October 2026 at 09:47 UTC the Court gave the Defendant 48 hours, extended discovery "appropriately to fit the deadline", and stated: "No further extensions will be granted at this time." (Post #18). Discovery therefore closed on 20 October 2026 at 09:47 UTC.

The Defendant filed D-001 to D-003 at 13:29 UTC and D-004 at 13:33 UTC, almost four hours after discovery closed, "if the Court would allow".

Rule 4.2 admits only material in the complaint, the answer, an amendment, or "a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible."

The courts apply this strictly: "evidence must not be submitted outside of discovery, unless it was otherwise ordered to be produce[d]" (Monzter9697 v. Mistery3597 [2026] DCR 65, Post #26); "This Court will not rely on D-001/D-002 ... on verdict" (The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200 [2026] DCR 154, Post #126); facts not brought up in discovery "will be disregarded pursuant to Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2", and counsel was "warned to avoid ambushing opposing parties" (Vanguard Co. v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, Post #59).

D-001 to D-004 were not ordered to be produced. The Plaintiff's Rule 4.7 request did not ask for them. They are new evidence the Defendant chose to volunteer after the deadline.

II. The Defendant has already had every chance

Answer to Complaint: an extension on request (Post #9), then a further 24-hour extension the Court gave on its own motion (Post #10).

Interrogatories (Post #14) and the Rule 4.7 request (Post #15): no objection within 24 hours and no answer within 48 hours, as Rule 4.8 requires.

After the Plaintiff's motion to compel (Post #17), the Court gave a further 48 hours and reopened the right to object (Post #18). The Defendant missed that deadline too.

The Defendant says it "saw your message and it said it was sent 'Yesterday' last night" (Post #19). The reactions on Post #18 show that the Attorney General reacted to the Court's order on 19 October 2026 at 15:01 UTC, almost 19 hours before the deadline.

The Defendant was represented throughout by the Attorney General, who has sat as a judge of this Court. Reading "Yesterday" on a post does not change a deadline stated in hours.

The Plaintiff, who is self-represented, has met every deadline in this case.

The courts hold the Commonwealth to its deadlines. When the Commonwealth failed to file an answer in time, the Supreme Court held that it "has forfeited its right to file an answer to the complaint filed" (MilkCrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5, Post #11). This Court has told a party that after a final extension "you forfeit your right" to the step missed (1ILight v. coslos [2026] DCR 180, Post #64). Admitting new evidence now would reward the missed deadline and leave the Plaintiff no discovery period in which to answer it.

III. In the alternative, D-001 and D-004 prove nothing about 6 October

D-001 is an editable text log with no date. Under Rule 4.6, such logs "are presumed correct unless challenged." The Plaintiff challenges it.

D-004 does not verify D-001. In it, the Attorney General told staff the logs "should have happened on 25 September 2026". The events in this case occurred on 6 October 2026. D-004 records no check of the logs by staff. Staff replied only: "Assumption is that they are true unless challenged." That is the same presumption as Rule 4.6, not a verification, and the Plaintiff challenges it.

IV. What the Plaintiff does not object to

The Plaintiff does not object to the Defendant's interrogatory answers (Post #19) or to DISCOVERY-001 (Post #20). Those were produced under the Court's order (Post #18) in response to the Plaintiff's own requests, and the Plaintiff asks that they be received despite their lateness.

V. Item 4 was not produced

The Defendant declined item 4 of the Plaintiff's Rule 4.7 request "if not under Court Order" (Post #20). Post #18 ordered production of "all pending compel requests", and no objection was made within the time the Court allowed. The Plaintiff asks the Court to order item 4 produced within 24 hours, or to draw the inference that the Defendant imposes the maximum penalty for this violation without regard to the conduct, which is consistent with its statement that "DHS normally charges the maximum" (Post #20).

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 20th day of October, 2026.

Superwoops said:
Defence submits the following evidence, if the Court would allow:

View attachment 102768

View attachment 102769

View attachment 102770

Superwoops said:
And this:

View attachment 102771

Here's what we'll do.

The Court will admit all material into evidence but will give Plaintiff 72 hours to respond to it with new evidence if he so wishes. This is waivable. The Court recognizes that the Commonwealth has been rather laxx with its adherence to deadlines but notes that it has not been a grave breach of the Order imposed. The Court also recognizes the amount of work the Commonwealth is under but notes that any further breaches of the deadlines imposed will be met with penalties.

As for item 4 of Plaintiff's compel request, the Court is unsure why such information is pertinent to this action. The Court asks Plaintiff to justify the need for the request in the new extension imposed.

sillyjustin · Tuesday at 10:38 PM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ADMITTED EVIDENCE AND JUSTIFICATION OF ITEM 4

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff responds to the Court's order (Post #26).

I. Justification of item 4

Item 4 asks, for each fine for Abuse of Public Resources since 1 May 2026, for a short summary of the conduct penalised and the reason for the amount, with names redacted. It is pertinent for three reasons:

What the Defendant treats as "frivolous". The only element of Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6 is that a sign service was used "frivolously". The Defendant's position is that "any press after the initial one is frivolous" (Post #11), yet its own evidence shows another patient paging twice within minutes (D-003). Whether the Defendant penalises comparable conduct shows whether its reading of "frivolously" is the one it actually applies.
The amount (Claim 3). The Defendant states that "DHS normally charges the maximum, as most civil violations don't have a real 'scaling' possibility" (Post #20). Part II §5 lets the Court impose "a lesser remedy or penalty than the maximum". The conduct behind the other recorded fines shows whether the maximum is applied regardless of what the person did.
The second fine. The Defendant's log shows two fines of $600 on 6 October 2026 (Post #20). The Plaintiff does not know whether the second relates to him, to the same events, or to someone else. Item 4 answers that.

Item 4 also meets the tests this Court has applied to discovery requests. In 1ILight v. coslos [2026] DCR 180, Post #25, the Court denied requests for material "already present in evidence", requests that were not "feasible", and requests that were "too broad". Item 4 is none of these: the conduct behind the other fines is not in evidence, the Defendant's own log shows only two entries in the period (Post #20), and the request asks only for a short summary of each, with names redacted. It serves the purpose of discovery "to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness" (Rule 4.1).

II. New evidence in response

The Plaintiff waives the opportunity to submit new evidence in response.

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 20th day of October, 2026.

Johnes · 2026-10-21T13:15:13-0400

sillyjustin said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ADMITTED EVIDENCE AND JUSTIFICATION OF ITEM 4

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff responds to the Court's order (Post #26).

I. Justification of item 4

Item 4 asks, for each fine for Abuse of Public Resources since 1 May 2026, for a short summary of the conduct penalised and the reason for the amount, with names redacted. It is pertinent for three reasons:

What the Defendant treats as "frivolous". The only element of Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6 is that a sign service was used "frivolously". The Defendant's position is that "any press after the initial one is frivolous" (Post #11), yet its own evidence shows another patient paging twice within minutes (D-003). Whether the Defendant penalises comparable conduct shows whether its reading of "frivolously" is the one it actually applies.

The amount (Claim 3). The Defendant states that "DHS normally charges the maximum, as most civil violations don't have a real 'scaling' possibility" (Post #20). Part II §5 lets the Court impose "a lesser remedy or penalty than the maximum". The conduct behind the other recorded fines shows whether the maximum is applied regardless of what the person did.

The second fine. The Defendant's log shows two fines of $600 on 6 October 2026 (Post #20). The Plaintiff does not know whether the second relates to him, to the same events, or to someone else. Item 4 answers that.

Item 4 also meets the tests this Court has applied to discovery requests. In 1ILight v. coslos [2026] DCR 180, Post #25, the Court denied requests for material "already present in evidence", requests that were not "feasible", and requests that were "too broad". Item 4 is none of these: the conduct behind the other fines is not in evidence, the Defendant's own log shows only two entries in the period (Post #20), and the request asks only for a short summary of each, with names redacted. It serves the purpose of discovery "to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness" (Rule 4.1).

II. New evidence in response

The Plaintiff waives the opportunity to submit new evidence in response.

Respectfully submitted,

sillyjustin
Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 20th day of October, 2026.