Lawsuit: Dismissed Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 69

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plura72

Plura72

Representative
Representative
Health Department
Supporter
5th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Statesman
Plura72
Plura72
Representative
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
140

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I'm here today because something seriously wrong is going on, and it’s being done by the very people who are supposed to protect the law, not break it. The Commonwealth expects us, regular citizens, to follow its laws, and we do. But when the government itself—specifically the Department of the Interior—starts ignoring those same laws, that’s not something we can just turn a blind eye to.
What’s happening at the Reveille Shelter is shocking and honestly heartbreaking. In one case I saw, there were more than ten dogs crammed into a space barely 3x3 blocks. That’s not just unfair to the animals, it’s cruel. And it’s illegal. We’ve got laws against pet and animal overcrowding, and for good reason. These animals can’t speak for themselves. They depend on us to do the right thing.
But instead of fixing the problem, the Department of the Interior has done nothing. They’ve known about it, and they’ve let it continue. And what’s worse, the Department of Justice hasn’t done a thing about it either. It feels like no one’s being held responsible for this, even though it’s clearly against the law.
If the shelter can’t handle more animals, then they need to stop taking more in until they can. Or expand it—do something. But right now they’re just letting animals suffer, and we’re supposed to sit back and accept it?
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Plura72
2. DoI
3. DoJ

II. FACTS
1. The Department of the Interior has been comiting animal abuse, more specifically violating Pet overcrowding and Animal overcrowding laws
2. The Department of the Interior has not made any effort to fix this issue
3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions.
4. Pet overcrowding is a crime under the Criminal Code Act
5. Animal overcrowding is a crime under the Criminal Code Act
6. both departments were negigent and aware of the issue and decided not to act on it
7. The reveille shelter is managed by the Department of the Interior

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $50,000 to be given to the plaintiff for purposes of animal welfare services
2. $5.000 in legal fees
3. Public apology from the DoI
4. The immediate compliance of the DoI with animal welfare laws


1752024012863.png

1752024056178.png

1752024150971.png

1752024164049.png

1752024186799.png

1752024202854.png

1752024214649.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 8 day of july 2025

 

Attachments

  • 1752024022904.png
    1752024022904.png
    909.6 KB · Views: 32
  • 1752024066321.png
    1752024066321.png
    469.6 KB · Views: 35
Last edited by a moderator:

Writ of Summons


@gribble19 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 69.

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.

 
The Commonwealth is Present, your honor.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaitiff asks for the following to be ammended
old:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding

New:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding
3. Discrimination against dogs


Evidence


The plaintiff requests the following image to be accepted into evidence as P-008

1752077759860.png

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence


P-009

1752078384325.png

P-010
1752078425569.png

P-011
1752078449696.png



Add to witness list:

AngryHamdog
_xrsp
Winterwolf
mcbrittle
SomeHumanonEarth
kay_jee
quazyoneandonly

 
Plura72 said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaitiff asks for the following to be ammended
old:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding

New:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding
3. Discrimination against dogs


Evidence


The plaintiff requests the following image to be accepted into evidence as P-008
View attachment 56792

Click to expand...
Plura72 said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence


P-009
View attachment 56793
P-010
View attachment 56794
P-011
View attachment 56795



Add to witness list:

AngryHamdog
_xrsp
Winterwolf
mcbrittle
SomeHumanonEarth
kay_jee
quazyoneandonly

Click to expand...

There is a time and place to add or edit complaints and it is during discovery. For the time being this is Denied. You may resubmit this once discovery begins.

Please review the court rules and procedure to ensure this does not happen in the future.
 
ameslap said:
There is a time and place to add or edit complaints and it is during discovery. For the time being this is Denied. You may resubmit this once discovery begins.

Please review the court rules and procedure to ensure this does not happen in the future.
Click to expand...

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the evidence provided is significant for pre-trial proceedings, i ask the court to accept the witness list and the evidence submitted.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence


p-012 // Oakridge shelter fox overcrowding

1752079822704.png

p-013 // oakridge shelter dog space
1752079905586.png

 

Motion



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence


P-014 // parrots exposed to natural weather conditions, animal endangerment and abandonament

1752080035809.png

 

Motion



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence


P-015

1752080201301.png

P-016
1752080218894.png

 
Plura72 said:

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the evidence provided is significant for pre-trial proceedings, i ask the court to accept the witness list and the evidence submitted.

Click to expand...
Plura72 said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence


p-012 // Oakridge shelter fox overcrowding
View attachment 56797
p-013 // oakridge shelter dog space
View attachment 56798

Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider and the new motion to amend are both Denied. Rule 3.3 states: "At anytime during the course of discovery, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may amend their Complaint to change the following..."

You will have your chance to amend your complaint. Furthermore, the trial does not commence until discovery is completed, so that meets your request of "the evidence provided is significant for pre-trial proceedings".
 

Motion


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

Rule 5.15; Joinder Limitation

The commonwealth motions to dismiss this case for multiple reasons.

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [5.12]:

The plaintiff has no standing to lodge this case, as provided by Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules, you must have suffered injury by some clear second party. As the plaintiff has not been slighted by the summary offenses they allege against the government, they have no clear standing to represent this case.

Precedent in lcn vs the Commonwealth 2025 [FCR 39] has shown through a successful motion to dismiss that a citizen cannot prosecute on behalf of the Department of Justice, this also applies to this case here, where the plaintiff is attempting to prosecute the DoI in the DoJs absence, through the claim listed "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as shown in FCR 39, a citizen may not prosecute on behalf of the department of justice.

Lack of Claim [5.5]:

There are two reasons why the plaintiff does not hold claim to the case at hand.

The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing animal overcrowding or animal cruelty.

Evidence listed [P-1,2,3,4,5,7] show plenty of room for the animals listed. It should be taken to note that the animals are not able to free roam as a restriction of the game engine, as if they were allowed to walk as they please they would just teleport out of the adoption center following the ranger who registered it as their owner.

Evidence 6 shows a stray center listing animals that are in a tight crowd, however this is a necessary result of the stray pen policy in the DOI. Strays need to be held close together under a sign for 30 days as per DOI Policy, this is a temporary arrangement that is required for bureaucracy and adoption by the original owner without accidentally misplacing any of the many dogs listed there.

The plaintiff lists claims that do not match either the facts or the reliefs requested by the Plaintiff, and as such this case should be dismissed.

The claims requested are two summary offenses against the Department of Interior, however their relief prayers list multiple requests that fall beyond the purview of the facts presented. 50,000 as a prayer for relief, as a result of the claims for relief given, do not line up as any sort of damages claimed by the plaintiff. This case is a frivolous filing in order to extract money from the commonwealth, which leads into the next point;

There was no attempt to go through proper channels within the DOI in order to resolve this issue, and as shown through precedent within these courts in 2021 SCR 16, where the justices state that "As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit.", no departmental ticket was created to handle this, and as such they have not utilized all exhaustive measures in order to resolve the situation before moving forward to reckless litigation.

Precedent has also shown that through the same fact "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as an invalid claim as the government cannot seek damages against itself, as shown through SCR precedent in 2024 [SCR 35], due to this, the listed above fact holds no claim to the case in motion and exists only to show that the plaintiff has not made any attempt to resolve this without looking to legal avenues.

Immunity Protections [5.11]

The DOI has a policy for putting stray animals within certain pens for the sake of organization and management for a duration of 30 days, found within their policy here, The evidence shown in P-6 is of a stray pen that was put up last night in order to handle a sudden influx of white dogs that were left there the night before, all under the same owner, as such, the pen follows DOI policy of requiring all strays within the same owner to be found within the same pen for the duration of 30 days.

For the reasons listed above, this case represents a citizen trying to extract undue profits from the government by reporting things that are not crimes, and as such, should be dismissed.

 
aubunny said:

Motion


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

Rule 5.15; Joinder Limitation

The commonwealth motions to dismiss this case for multiple reasons.

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [5.12]:

The plaintiff has no standing to lodge this case, as provided by Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules, you must have suffered injury by some clear second party. As the plaintiff has not been slighted by the summary offenses they allege against the government, they have no clear standing to represent this case.

Precedent in lcn vs the Commonwealth 2025 [FCR 39] has shown through a successful motion to dismiss that a citizen cannot prosecute on behalf of the Department of Justice, this also applies to this case here, where the plaintiff is attempting to prosecute the DoI in the DoJs absence, through the claim listed "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as shown in FCR 39, a citizen may not prosecute on behalf of the department of justice.

Lack of Claim [5.5]:

There are two reasons why the plaintiff does not hold claim to the case at hand.

The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing animal overcrowding or animal cruelty.

Evidence listed [P-1,2,3,4,5,7] show plenty of room for the animals listed. It should be taken to note that the animals are not able to free roam as a restriction of the game engine, as if they were allowed to walk as they please they would just teleport out of the adoption center following the ranger who registered it as their owner.

Evidence 6 shows a stray center listing animals that are in a tight crowd, however this is a necessary result of the stray pen policy in the DOI. Strays need to be held close together under a sign for 30 days as per DOI Policy, this is a temporary arrangement that is required for bureaucracy and adoption by the original owner without accidentally misplacing any of the many dogs listed there.

The plaintiff lists claims that do not match either the facts or the reliefs requested by the Plaintiff, and as such this case should be dismissed.

The claims requested are two summary offenses against the Department of Interior, however their relief prayers list multiple requests that fall beyond the purview of the facts presented. 50,000 as a prayer for relief, as a result of the claims for relief given, do not line up as any sort of damages claimed by the plaintiff. This case is a frivolous filing in order to extract money from the commonwealth, which leads into the next point;

There was no attempt to go through proper channels within the DOI in order to resolve this issue, and as shown through precedent within these courts in 2021 SCR 16, where the justices state that "As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit.", no departmental ticket was created to handle this, and as such they have not utilized all exhaustive measures in order to resolve the situation before moving forward to reckless litigation.

Precedent has also shown that through the same fact "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as an invalid claim as the government cannot seek damages against itself, as shown through SCR precedent in 2024 [SCR 35], due to this, the listed above fact holds no claim to the case in motion and exists only to show that the plaintiff has not made any attempt to resolve this without looking to legal avenues.

Immunity Protections [5.11]

The DOI has a policy for putting stray animals within certain pens for the sake of organization and management for a duration of 30 days, found within their policy here, The evidence shown in P-6 is of a stray pen that was put up last night in order to handle a sudden influx of white dogs that were left there the night before, all under the same owner, as such, the pen follows DOI policy of requiring all strays within the same owner to be found within the same pen for the duration of 30 days.

For the reasons listed above, this case represents a citizen trying to extract undue profits from the government by reporting things that are not crimes, and as such, should be dismissed.

Click to expand...
your honor i request a response
 
To uphold the right to a speedy trial, the defense requests that a deadline be set for the prosecution's reply to this motion to dismiss.
 
aubunny said:
To uphold the right to a speedy trial, the defense requests that a deadline be set for the prosecution's reply to this motion to dismiss.
Click to expand...
That is my mistake, I had thought that I had included it in the original approval.

@Plura72 you have 24 hours as of the original approval below to submit your response.
ameslap said:
You may.
Click to expand...
 

Objection


OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

You know the deal, 24 hours has elapsed, defense requests you motion on the dismissal.

 
aubunny said:

Objection


OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

You know the deal, 24 hours has elapsed, defense requests you motion on the dismissal.

Click to expand...
Sustained. And here is my ruling.

aubunny said:

Motion


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

Rule 5.15; Joinder Limitation

The commonwealth motions to dismiss this case for multiple reasons.

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [5.12]:

The plaintiff has no standing to lodge this case, as provided by Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules, you must have suffered injury by some clear second party. As the plaintiff has not been slighted by the summary offenses they allege against the government, they have no clear standing to represent this case.

Precedent in lcn vs the Commonwealth 2025 [FCR 39] has shown through a successful motion to dismiss that a citizen cannot prosecute on behalf of the Department of Justice, this also applies to this case here, where the plaintiff is attempting to prosecute the DoI in the DoJs absence, through the claim listed "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as shown in FCR 39, a citizen may not prosecute on behalf of the department of justice.

Lack of Claim [5.5]:

There are two reasons why the plaintiff does not hold claim to the case at hand.

The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing animal overcrowding or animal cruelty.

Evidence listed [P-1,2,3,4,5,7] show plenty of room for the animals listed. It should be taken to note that the animals are not able to free roam as a restriction of the game engine, as if they were allowed to walk as they please they would just teleport out of the adoption center following the ranger who registered it as their owner.

Evidence 6 shows a stray center listing animals that are in a tight crowd, however this is a necessary result of the stray pen policy in the DOI. Strays need to be held close together under a sign for 30 days as per DOI Policy, this is a temporary arrangement that is required for bureaucracy and adoption by the original owner without accidentally misplacing any of the many dogs listed there.

The plaintiff lists claims that do not match either the facts or the reliefs requested by the Plaintiff, and as such this case should be dismissed.

The claims requested are two summary offenses against the Department of Interior, however their relief prayers list multiple requests that fall beyond the purview of the facts presented. 50,000 as a prayer for relief, as a result of the claims for relief given, do not line up as any sort of damages claimed by the plaintiff. This case is a frivolous filing in order to extract money from the commonwealth, which leads into the next point;

There was no attempt to go through proper channels within the DOI in order to resolve this issue, and as shown through precedent within these courts in 2021 SCR 16, where the justices state that "As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit.", no departmental ticket was created to handle this, and as such they have not utilized all exhaustive measures in order to resolve the situation before moving forward to reckless litigation.

Precedent has also shown that through the same fact "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as an invalid claim as the government cannot seek damages against itself, as shown through SCR precedent in 2024 [SCR 35], due to this, the listed above fact holds no claim to the case in motion and exists only to show that the plaintiff has not made any attempt to resolve this without looking to legal avenues.

Immunity Protections [5.11]

The DOI has a policy for putting stray animals within certain pens for the sake of organization and management for a duration of 30 days, found within their policy here, The evidence shown in P-6 is of a stray pen that was put up last night in order to handle a sudden influx of white dogs that were left there the night before, all under the same owner, as such, the pen follows DOI policy of requiring all strays within the same owner to be found within the same pen for the duration of 30 days.

For the reasons listed above, this case represents a citizen trying to extract undue profits from the government by reporting things that are not crimes, and as such, should be dismissed.

Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS
Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont - [2025] FCR 69
Civil Action

This motion has caused a lot of discussion within the judiciary, and today we shall clarify some things.

On Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [5.12]:
It may be true that the Plaintiff was not directly harmed by the Government’s compliance (or lack there of) however, history has shown us that there are indeed times and circumstances where a citizen has been allowed to lodge a case against the Government for perceived non-compliance of the law (see [2025] - FCR 31 and [2025] FCR - 44). These are necessary checks from the public on the Government.

This court will allow standing for citizens to sue the government and request reasonable compliance to a law. These claims may only grant relief of requiring compliance and legal fees.

That being said, the Commonwealth is correct that “a citizen may not prosecute on behalf of the department of justice”. This is to mean that they cannot file criminal proceedings against the Commonwealth but the Criminal Code Act allows for crimes to be used to seek civil damages (Criminal Code Act - 6.1). This is what the Plaintiff is seeking to do here.

On Lack of Claim [5.5]:
The evidence provided thus far does appear to follow the law of 2 blocks per dog, cat, or parrot - at least so far as an image can show. However, as discovery has not yet happened, there is a possibility that the law is violated here. It would be unreasonable for us to dismiss this claim at this point before discovery has occured.

When looking at [2021] - SCR 16, we can also look back on former Judge Juniperfig’s breakdown of the precedent and see if it applies to this case ([2025] - FCR 31).

The question on whether the precedent applies is does the DOI need to be alerted when they are violating animal crimes when it's their responsibility to run the animal shelter? The answer is no. They should already be aware of the operations and status of their own shelter. Furthermore, if citizens cannot claim ignorance to the law as a defense when breaking it, the Government cannot either.

On Immunity Protections [5.11]:
I am not convinced that the Commonwealth has immunity in this instance. A written policy does not override any law, and the law in question does not provide any exceptions to the DOI as far as this court sees it.

Thus this motion to dismiss is denied in part. The Defendant may resubmit a motion to dismiss for rule 5.5 after discovery if it is warranted.

The court is dismissing the $50,000 and the public apology as a claim for relief however.
 
Just a reminder the Defense has ~19.5 hours to submit their answer to the complaint.
 
can i get a 24 hours extension on this case?
 
Plura72 said:
can i get a 24 hours extension on this case?
Click to expand...
There is nothing you have before you on this case at this moment, unless you are requesting that opposing counsel is given an additional 24 hours?
 
ameslap said:
There is nothing you have before you on this case at this moment, unless you are requesting that opposing counsel is given an additional 24 hours?
Click to expand...
i am busy with campaign for house rn, last hours, i would like a extra 24 hours in this case rn
 
Plura72 said:
i am busy with campaign for house rn, last hours, i would like a extra 24 hours in this case rn
Click to expand...
Again, you have nothing pending that you need to do in this case at this moment, so this request is denied. If something actionable that you need to do in this cases comes up and you still need an extension you may request one then.
 
ameslap said:
Again, you have nothing pending that you need to do in this case at this moment, so this request is denied. If something actionable that you need to do in this cases comes up and you still need an extension you may request one then.
Click to expand...
Your honor, i withdraw my request
 
ameslap said:
Sustained. And here is my ruling.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS
Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont - [2025] FCR 69
Civil Action

This motion has caused a lot of discussion within the judiciary, and today we shall clarify some things.

On Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [5.12]:
It may be true that the Plaintiff was not directly harmed by the Government’s compliance (or lack there of) however, history has shown us that there are indeed times and circumstances where a citizen has been allowed to lodge a case against the Government for perceived non-compliance of the law (see [2025] - FCR 31 and [2025] FCR - 44). These are necessary checks from the public on the Government.

This court will allow standing for citizens to sue the government and request reasonable compliance to a law. These claims may only grant relief of requiring compliance and legal fees.

That being said, the Commonwealth is correct that “a citizen may not prosecute on behalf of the department of justice”. This is to mean that they cannot file criminal proceedings against the Commonwealth but the Criminal Code Act allows for crimes to be used to seek civil damages (Criminal Code Act - 6.1). This is what the Plaintiff is seeking to do here.

On Lack of Claim [5.5]:
The evidence provided thus far does appear to follow the law of 2 blocks per dog, cat, or parrot - at least so far as an image can show. However, as discovery has not yet happened, there is a possibility that the law is violated here. It would be unreasonable for us to dismiss this claim at this point before discovery has occured.

When looking at [2021] - SCR 16, we can also look back on former Judge Juniperfig’s breakdown of the precedent and see if it applies to this case ([2025] - FCR 31).

The question on whether the precedent applies is does the DOI need to be alerted when they are violating animal crimes when it's their responsibility to run the animal shelter? The answer is no. They should already be aware of the operations and status of their own shelter. Furthermore, if citizens cannot claim ignorance to the law as a defense when breaking it, the Government cannot either.

On Immunity Protections [5.11]:
I am not convinced that the Commonwealth has immunity in this instance. A written policy does not override any law, and the law in question does not provide any exceptions to the DOI as far as this court sees it.

Thus this motion to dismiss is denied in part. The Defendant may resubmit a motion to dismiss for rule 5.5 after discovery if it is warranted.

The court is dismissing the $50,000 and the public apology as a claim for relief however.
Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider


Your Honor, the Court has ruled that Plaintiff has standing on the basis that per the Criminal Code Act it is allowed for crimes to be used to seek civil damages; however, the Court has dismissed the only claim for civil damages in this case. The Plaintiff is now suing the commonwealth for compliance alone, which is not covered under this section of the Criminal Code act.

The decision later on relies on precedent from FCR-44, which is a case that was motioned into summary judgment, with the motion to dismiss put forward in that case being waived due to the plaintiff amending their complaint at the time. This does not align with the circumstances that the motion to dismiss in this case presented to the court. The precedent in FCR-31 does not align with this for similar reasons, as the motion to dismiss lodged in that case had nothing to do with standing. Both FCR-31 and FCR-44 were for seeking civil damages as the plaintiffs were directly affected by the process of legislature or law, and not seeking vigilante justice against a branch of government. Their claims holding little monetary reward was merely circumstantial.

 
aubunny said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider


Your Honor, the Court has ruled that Plaintiff has standing on the basis that per the Criminal Code Act it is allowed for crimes to be used to seek civil damages; however, the Court has dismissed the only claim for civil damages in this case. The Plaintiff is now suing the commonwealth for compliance alone, which is not covered under this section of the Criminal Code act.

The decision later on relies on precedent from FCR-44, which is a case that was motioned into summary judgment, with the motion to dismiss put forward in that case being waived due to the plaintiff amending their complaint at the time. This does not align with the circumstances that the motion to dismiss in this case presented to the court. The precedent in FCR-31 does not align with this for similar reasons, as the motion to dismiss lodged in that case had nothing to do with standing. Both FCR-31 and FCR-44 were for seeking civil damages as the plaintiffs were directly affected by the process of legislature or law, and not seeking vigilante justice against a branch of government. Their claims holding little monetary reward was merely circumstantial.

Click to expand...
Motion for reconsideration is denied.

The court ruled that citizens have standing to reasonably request the government to comply with a law. Dimissing the monetary damages does not dimiss the compliance request.

Neither FCR 44 or 31 were cases in which the plaintiff was directly harmed, they were seeking a specific action from the Government to comply with a law. We see the same here.
 
Defense requests a 24 hour extension for the answer to complaint due to work obligations.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense DENIES that the Department of the Interior has been committing animal abuse, more specifically, pet overcrowding and animal overcrowding laws
2. The defense DENIES that the Department of the Interior has not made any effort to fix this issue
3. The defense DENIES that the Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of the Interior for its horrific actions
4. The defense CONFIRMS that Pet overcrowding is a crime under the Criminal Code Act
5. The defense CONFIRMS that animal overcrowding is a crime under the Criminal Code Act
6. The defense DENIES that both departments were negligent and aware of the issue and decided not to act on it.
7. The defense CONFIRMS that the Reveille shelter is managed by the Department of the Interior

II. DEFENSES
1. In the notion that the Department of the Interior has been committing animal abuse, it is clear that the Plaintiff does not understand basic Minecraft functionality. The Plaintiff argues that since the animals are sitting close to each other, or willingly moving into the same block, the Government should be held liable. This false flat under the notion that;
a) Pets [tamed animals] may not be given free roam, because pets will teleport to the Ranger that moved them there due to ownership functionality in base Minecraft. This is a game engine limitation, so The Government cannot be held liable.
b) Pathfinding in Minecraft fails to consider things that aren't solid blocks as objects that block movement; as such, passive mobs tend to clutter up into one spot, trying to escape their fenced enclosures. This phenomenon of the game engine tends to create a "clumping" effect as all the mobs view the same pathfinding option as the "only possible result", and as such, will all go to the same spot willingly, with no clear way to disperse them. Due to this being another game engine quirk, the Government cannot be held liable.

2. The defense has shown in the above motion to dismiss that all of the evidence presented thus far has completely complied with Animal overcrowding laws, and very intentionally does so with their policies. This can be seen with their policy around the Oakridge shelter, which forbids the adoption of strays in that area. This is because it is the smallest of the locations and cannot support the strays that would come through.

3. For the same reason, it cannot be seen that the Department of Justice should be prosecuting the Department of the Interior, this is because both
a) The Department of Justice cannot sue over an intergovernmental matter; it should be handled internally, mediated by the Department of State, as per the Executive Standards Act
b) As per the ESA, auditing and oversight of other departments is also the Department of State's responsibility, including law-breaking.

The Plaintiff, as shown currently, has strung together a loose collection of compliant images and used a grave misunderstanding of the law to prosecute the government for... doing nothing that deviates from their roles under the ESA, Constitution, or any binding law.

iii. Witnesses

AngryHamDog

iv. Evidence

1752286323554.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 11th day of July, 2025.

 
Alright time to begin discovery, it will last for 5 days, parties may end discovery early if they both agree.

One of my goals as a Judge is offer in-game trials, so I would like both parties to respond and let me know if you would like to conduct the trial in-game or not. Your responses are due by the end of discovery.

Thank you all!
 

Motion


Motion to nolle prosequi

The commonwealth has solved the shelter issues

certfied pluh moment

 
Plura72 said:

Motion


Motion to nolle prosequi

The commonwealth has solved the shelter issues

certfied pluh moment

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISMISSAL

I will be granting the dismissal per Nolle Prosequi.

It is great to hear that the parties have settled their differences, however, this is suggestion to the Plaintiff or any other person:

Before filing a case against the Commonwealth in the future, attempt to resolve with the Commonwealth directly. The last 7 days could have been avoided had you open a line of communication with the party first.

Maybe in the future we can look to avoid more "certfied pluh moment"s.

This court is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top