Lawsuit: Pending xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 55

Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Attorney
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,644

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour (Justice Compass, Ltd. representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

xEndeavour, a citizen of the Commonwealth, was recently violated by the Congress. The Congress, who is meant to represent the will of the people, has betrayed that trust and overstepped their bounds, executing a power-play over the Plaintiff, mocking him in public, and fining him exorbitant amounts of money. Yes, the Congress has decided Mr. End has committed the crime of "Contempt of Congress" with no legal standing... twice.
Click to expand...

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

II. FACTS
Note: All times will be in Central Daylight Time, as that is my timezone.

1. On August 5 at 11:04 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress for his "abhorrent behavior" [Exhibit P-001].
2. On August 6 at 11:25 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress again, for his "bad behavior in the oversight hearing" [Exhibit P-002].
3. The Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6, Subsection 3 reads:
(3) Criminal Offence Classification
(a) All criminal offences must carry the classification of either: Indictable or Summary.
(b) Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules.
(c) Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings,
(d) Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.
(e) If a criminal offence fails to be specified as an Indictable or Summary Offense, then it shall not be added to the code.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added).
4. The Verdict of [2022] FCR 97 reads (excerpt):
1. The Constitution states that the Judiciary has the duty to “interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive”.
2. This does not include any mention of executing laws or maintaining offices that are not specified.
3. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
4. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.
Click to expand...
5. The Constitution provides the following right:
Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.
Click to expand...

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Constitutional Violation. The Congress is a Legislative body, not an Executive nor Judicial one. It can neither find an individual guilty of a crime nor punish someone for it, yet they found the Plaintiff guilty of a crime and punished him for it, acting as both Judge and Executor.
2. Constitutional Rights Violation. The Plaintiff was not given a trial for the alleged crime. The Plaintiff was not confronted with the evidence against them until after they had been found guilty. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to have a defense, and was not given the opportunity to contest the charge with legally qualified counsel.
3. Criminal Code Violation. The Congress passed the Criminal Code and clearly stated that only Government Departments and Judicial Officers can enforce criminal law. As such, the Congress does not have the power to punish an individual for alleged crimes, including Contempt of Congress.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Both Contempt of Congress charges be overturned.
2. $8,000 in refunded fines.
3. $7,500 in Nominal Damages, per the Legal Damages Act.
4. $6,000 in Legal Fees, payable to JusticeCompass (or Dartanboy), per the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE
1754526594588.png

1754526722852.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 August 2025.



1754585214306.png
 

Writ of Summons


@dearev is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

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.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that on August 5 at 11:04 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress for his "abhorrent behavior"
2. AFFIRM that on August 6 at 11:25 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress again, for his "bad behavior in the oversight hearing".
3. AFFIRM that The Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6, Subsection 3 reads:

(3) Criminal Offence Classification
(a) All criminal offences must carry the classification of either: Indictable or Summary.
(b) Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules.
(c) Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings,
(d) Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.
(e) If a criminal offence fails to be specified as an Indictable or Summary Offense, then it shall not be added to the code.
Click to expand...
4. AFFIRM that The Verdict of [2022] FCR 97 reads (excerpt):
1. The Constitution states that the Judiciary has the duty to “interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive”.
2. This does not include any mention of executing laws or maintaining offices that are not specified.
3. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
4. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.
Click to expand...
5. AFFIRMS that The Constitution provides the following right:
Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.
Click to expand...


II. DEFENSES

1. The Legislative Standards Act §17.1 states that:
(1) The House of Representatives, Senate, or any committee may vote to hold a person"in contempt" by a majority vote.
Click to expand...
This act clearly gives congress the ability to hold a person in contempt via majority vote.

2. The Criminal Code Act states that:
(2) Summary Offence means an offence that may be dealt with by immediate penalty, without the need for formal trial. This can be contested before a judicial officer after issue.
Click to expand...
This provision defines a summary offense as one that can be charged without a trial.

3. The Criminal Code Act defines Contempt of Congress as:
6 - Contempt of Congress
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 40 Penalty Units
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry \or
investigation.
(b) engages in conduct that is disrespectful or unbecoming of the dignity of Congress or
its proceedings.
Click to expand...
As defined by the Criminal Code Act, Contempt of Congress is a summary offense, and therefore subject to the earlier definition. As it is subject to that definition, the plaintiffs’ claim that their rights were violated because they were not given an opportunity to contest the charge is utterly ridiculous, as there is no provision for such actions with summary offenses. The only action available to the plaintiff is to contest the charge after issue, which is currently being done.

4. The plantiff has failed to provide any evidance that Congress acted as "both Judge and Executor." The only evidance provided shows that the Plantiff was charged with contempt of Congress via a majority vote.

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 14th day of August 2025

 
We shall now enter Discovery. Discovery shall last 5 days, or less if both parties agree to end it earlier.
 

Motion


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

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Case Filing FACTS section as follows:

II. FACTS
Note: All times will be in Central Daylight Time, as that is my timezone.

1. On August 5 at 11:04 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress for his "abhorrent behavior" [Exhibit P-001].
2. On August 6 at 11:25 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress again, for his "bad behavior in the oversight hearing" [Exhibit P-002].
3. The Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6, Subsection 3 reads:

(3) Criminal Offence Classification
(a) All criminal offences must carry the classification of either: Indictable or Summary.
(b) Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules.
(c) Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings,
(d) Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.
(e) If a criminal offence fails to be specified as an Indictable or Summary Offense, then it shall not be added to the code.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added).
4. The Verdict of [2022] FCR 97 reads (excerpt):
1. The Constitution states that the Judiciary has the duty to “interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive”.
2. This does not include any mention of executing laws or maintaining offices that are not specified.
3. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
4. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.
Click to expand...
5. The Constitution provides the following right:
Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.
Click to expand...

6. The Criminal Code Act (previously linked in Fact 3), Part 3, Sections 6, reads:
6 - Contempt of Congress
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 40 Penalty Units
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry or investigation.
(b) engages in conduct that is disrespectful or unbecoming of the dignity of Congress or its proceedings.
Click to expand...

7. The Legislative Standards Act, Section 17, reads:
(1) The House of Representatives, Senate, or any committee may vote to hold a person "in contempt" by a majority vote. The Speaker will then report the incident to the Department of Justice to be actioned.

To refuse to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee.
First Offence: $1500 fine and 10 minutes of jail time
Second Offence: $2000 fine and 20 minutes of jail time
Third Offence: $4000 fine, 40 minutes of jailtime, and a Censure
Click to expand...

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Case Filing CLAIMS FOR RELIEF section as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Constitutional Violation. The Congress is a Legislative body, not an Executive nor Judicial one. It can neither find an individual guilty of a crime nor punish someone for it, yet they found the Plaintiff guilty of a crime and punished him for it, acting as both Judge and Executor and determined the punishment, acting as a Judicial body, not a Legislative one.
2. Constitutional Rights Violation. The Plaintiff was not given a trial for the alleged crime. The Plaintiff was not confronted with the evidence against them until after they had been found guilty. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to have a defense, and was not given the opportunity to contest the charge with legally qualified counsel.
3. Criminal Code Violation. The Congress passed the Criminal Code and clearly stated that only Government Departments and Judicial Officers can enforce criminal law. As such, the Congress does not have the power to punish an individual for alleged crimes, including Contempt of Congress.
4. Ambiguous Law Requiring Clarification. The Legislative Standards Act and Criminal Code Act differ on both the definition and penalty of Contempt of Congress.

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Case Filing PRAYER FOR RELIEF section as follows:

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Both Contempt of Congress charges be overturned.
2. $8,000 in refunded fines.
3. $7,500 in Nominal Damages, per the Legal Damages Act.
4. $6,000 in Legal Fees, payable to JusticeCompass (or Dartanboy), per the Legal Damages Act.
5. A public apology in #government-announcements from Congress apologizing for their illegal conduct.

 

Motion


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

The Plaintiff seeks to add the following additional facts to the FACTS section of the Case Filing:
8. The Commonwealth did not confront xEndeavour with any evidence when charging him in #government-announcements [P-001, P-002].

9. The Burden of Proof of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt falls on the Commonwealth when charging citizens with crimes.

 
Both Motions are granted.
 

Motion


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

The defence moves to amend its Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
6. AFFIRMS that the Criminal Code Act (previously linked in Fact 3), Part 3, Sections 6, reads:

6 - Contempt of Congress
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 40 Penalty Units
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry or investigation.
(b) engages in conduct that is disrespectful or unbecoming of the dignity of Congress or its proceedings.
Click to expand...
7. AFFIRMS that the Legislative Standards Act, Section 17, reads:
(1) The House of Representatives, Senate, or any committee may vote to hold a person "in contempt" by a majority vote. The Speaker will then report the incident to the Department of Justice to be actioned.

To refuse to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee.
First Offence: $1500 fine and 10 minutes of jail time
Second Offence: $2000 fine and 20 minutes of jail time
Third Offence: $4000 fine, 40 minutes of jailtime, and a Censure
Click to expand...
8. DENYS that the Commonwealth did not confront xEndeavour with any evidence when charging him in #government-announcements [P-001, P-002].
9. AFFIRMS that the Burden of Proof of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt falls on the Commonwealth when charging citizens with crimes.

II. DEFENSES
...
5. While not explicitly stated as evidance, Congress did provide reasoning for their charges against xEndeavour, which included quotes from both the Plantiff and attending Congress people.

(where green and bold should be added to the Answer to Complaint)

 
Dogeington said:

Motion


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

The defence moves to amend its Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
6. AFFIRMS that the Criminal Code Act (previously linked in Fact 3), Part 3, Sections 6, reads:

7. AFFIRMS that the Legislative Standards Act, Section 17, reads:

8. DENYS that the Commonwealth did not confront xEndeavour with any evidence when charging him in #government-announcements [P-001, P-002].
9. AFFIRMS that the Burden of Proof of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt falls on the Commonwealth when charging citizens with crimes.

II. DEFENSES
...
5. While not explicitly stated as evidance, Congress did provide reasoning for their charges against xEndeavour, which included quotes from both the Plantiff and attending Congress people.

(where green and bold should be added to the Answer to Complaint)

Click to expand...
Granted.
 
Your honor,
Given the changes to the complaint, the defense seeks to extend discovery by 24 hours.
 
Does the plaintiff object to the extension?
 
Yes, your honor, please consider this our oppositional statement:

The Defense has requested an extension, one which apparently serves no purpose but to extend this case longer, violating my client's right to a speedy trial.

While on the surface, their request may seem legitimate:
Given the changes to the complaint, the defense seeks to extend discovery by 24 hours.
Click to expand...

This seems illegitimate to the Plaintiff, as the Defense has already filed amendments to their answer in response to the changes to the complaint. Additional time is not necessary.

We request the case continue onward with haste.

Thank you.
 
I will be granting the extension to Discovery. An additional 24 hours is not going to infringe on the Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial, and I believe it is a reasonable request considering the quantity of amendments from both sides.
 
Discovery is now ended. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to file their Opening Statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top