Lawsuit: Pending Redmont Civil Liberties Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 60

M

Muggy21

Citizen
Muggy21
Muggy21
Attorney
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
22

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION

Given the inherent conflict of interest between the Attorney General and a claim against the Commonwealth given the allegations, I humbly request an injunction barring the Attorney General from representing the Commonwealth or any of elected official personally be granted.









Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Redmont Civil Liberties Union [Represented by Muggy21]
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont, Dearev (in his or her Official Capacity)
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


Plaintiff’s leader, Muggy21, was in front of the Redmont Capitol soliciting and promoting the services of the RCLU. The RCLU is in part a political organization, spreading and disseminating the rights of citizens in lawsuits against the Commonwealth in high traffic public forums. While undertaking in non-inflammatory nor offensive speech at Spawn, the Attorney General himself, Dearev, viciously attacked Muggy21, causing significant bodily harm. In an attempt to intimidate and stifle Muggy21’s speech, the defendant threatened to have his head; with the underlying context that the RCLU should stop its actions.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Redmont Civil Liberties Union (“RCLU”) [Plaintiff]
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont [Defendant]
3. Dearev, in his or her Official Capacity [Defendant]


II. FACTS
1. The RCLU is in part a political organization engaging in constitutionally protected activity.
2. Muggy21 is the leader and primary spokesperson for the RCLU.
3.Defendent, dearev, is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth.
4. As Acting Attorney General, it is within his or her purview to uphold the Constitution and to ensure equal protection under the law across the citizenry.
5. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:18:24 EST, Muggy21 launched an advertisement that stated the following “AD » Police falsely arrested you? Let the RCLU know! - Muggy21”
6. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:28:21 EST, Muggy21 engaged in politically protected speech by inquiring to the financial condition of a fellow citizen.
7. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:31:00, Muggy21 was at spawn interacting with the local population, engaging in the same protected speech.
8. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:31:04 EST Dearev, approached Muggy21 with the intent of causing bodily harm. Shortly thereafter, Dearev unlawfully possessed a deadly weapon and caused fatal bodily injury to Muggy21.
9. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:31:06, Muggy21 was murdered, without informed explicit consent.
10. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:32:00, Muggy21 returned to spawn to continue politically protected speech.
11. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:32:01, Dearev continued his campaign of intimidation by unlawfully possessing a deadly weapon and causing severe bodily injury to Muggy21.
12. On August 11th, 2025, at 19:32:06, Dearev intimidated Muggy21 by stating “i need ur head.”
13. On August 11th, 2025 at 19:35:08, dearev fled the jurisdiction.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A. Organizational Standing
  1. The RCLU is an organization that advocates for the civil rights of Redmontonians and regularly engages in outreach, education, and litigation in appropriate public forums.
  2. The Acting Attorney General, via this violent attack and retaliation, has a) had chilling effect (not the punishment) on the RCLU’s constitutionally protected speech and advocacy, (b) forced diversion of the organization’s mission to defend its freedoms.
B. Constitutional Violations
  1. The RCLU’s outreach and advertisements constituted core political communication and peaceful assembly, as protected under Part IV: §6 Freedom of Political Communication; §10 Freedom of the Press and Media; §11 Freedom of Peaceful Assembly; §12 Freedom of Association; (also see xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62)
  2. Acting under the color of state authority, with his or her flagrant disregard for the law, were intended to deter, punish and chill said protected expression and association..
  3. The Commonwealth is responsible for the general welfare of the people and its generally responsible for compliance with the Constitution. The Acting Attorney General, as a member of the Government, shares in this responsibility.

C. Equal Protection Discrimination
  1. The Acting Attorney General targeted the RCLU’s leader because of its organizational viewpoint and political activity.
  2. Differential, violent treatment based on political belief is unconstitutional under Part IV: §6 Freedom of Political Communication;
  3. The RCLU, primarily controlled by a law-abiding citizen of the Commonwealth, is an apparatus of a citizen’s rights under the Constitution; Therefore, violating the rights of the RCLU, violates the rights of the citizen.
D. Ultra Vires Acts; The Commonwealth Can’t Claim Sovereign Immunity
  1. The Acting Attorney General’s use of physical violence, in a color of authority action, to suppress protected political communication at a public forum is ultra vires.
  2. By definition, conduct that violates Part IV §§6, 10–12, 13, and 14 is not “execution” of law; it is an abandonment of office and cannot be cloaked in sovereign immunity for purposes of prospective relief; in the alternative, Plaintiff asserts that Sovereign Immunity can’t cover an action not explicitly authorized by law or edict.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. A declaratory judgment that Dearev acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully stifled legitimate political speech.
2. A declaratory judgment that permits political organizations to assert violations of law impact it directly, without the need for citizen inclusion in litigation.
3. A judgment of a monetary award for damages, where said damages may be compensatory, punitive, consequential, or in the alternative, nominal damages.
4. A judgement of a monetary award for legal fees as permitted under the Legal Damages Act.
5. Plaintiff does not reasonable expect this allegation to rise above the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.


Evidence:

Chat Logs (P-001)
pastebin.com

[19:18:24] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] - Pastebin.com

Pastebin.com is the number one paste tool since 2002. Pastebin is a website where you can store text online for a set period of time.
pastebin.com pastebin.com
Discord Advert (P-002)
discord.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.
discord.com discord.com

Witnesses: Dearev

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

DATED: This 12th day of August, 2025.



Proof of Representation is moot, I'm the leader of the RCLU.
 
I'd like to withdraw my Request for Injunction. Dearev has been appointed as Magistrate, thus becoming ineligible to defend the Commonwealth. This causes my injunction to be moot.
 

Writ of Summons


@juniperfig is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of Redmont Civil Liberties Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 60.

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.

 
Commonwealth is present, your honour.
 
You have 48 hours to file your Answer to Complaint.
 

​

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Redmont Civil Liberties Union [Represented by Muggy21]
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont, Dearev (in his or her Official Capacity)
Defendants

I. PARTIES
1. The commonwealth affirms sections 1-3 in their entirety.

II. FACTS
1. The Commonwealth affirms the Redmont Civil Liberties Union ("RCLU") is an entity registered in part for the purpose of engaging in a constitutionally protected activity, namely, advancement of litigation in furtherance of civil rights.
2. The Commonwealth affirms that Muggy21 is the leader and primary spokesperson of the RLCU.
3. The Commonwealth affirms that derive was the acting Attorney General of the Commonwealth at the time of the incident, and has since left the office.
4. The Commonwealth affirms that in the official capacity of the Attorney General, it is the duty of the Attorney General to uphold the Constitution and to ensure equal protection under the law.
5. The Commonwealth affirms paragraph 5 in its entirety.
6. The Commonwealth affirms that on August 11th, 2025, at 19:28:21 EST, Muggy21 asked an unidentified individual in local chat "do you pay property taxes?" The government denies this was "politically protected speech."
7. The Commonwealth affirms that on August 11th, 2025, at 19:31:00, Muggy was at spawn. The Commonwealth denies that Muggy21 engaged in any speech at that time.
8. The Commonwealth affirms that on August 11th, 2025, at 19:31:04 EST Dearev attacked Muggy21 with an unknown weapon. The Commonwealth additionally affirms that this attack caused Muggy21 fatal bodily injury.
9. The Commonwealth affirms paragraph 9 in its entirety.
10. The Commonwealth affirms paragraph 10 in so far as Muggy21 returned to spawn. The Commonwealth denies that their purpose in returning to spawn was to engage in protected speech.
11. The Commonwealth affirms that on August 11th, 2025, at 19:32:01, struck Muggy21 in some way, beginning a fight. The Commonwealth denies this was for the purpose of intimidation, and denies it caused severe bodily injury to Muggy21.
12. The Commonwealth affirms that on August 11th, 2025, at 19:32:06, dearev stated "I need ur head" in local chat.
13. The Commonwealth affirms that on August 11th, 2025 at 19:35:08, dearev logged out of the server.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A. Organizational Standing
1. The Commonwealth affirms paragraph 1 in its entirety.
2. The Commonwealth denies paragraph 2 in its entirety.

B. Constitutional Violations
1. The Commonwealth affirms that the RCLU's outreach constitutes protected actions under the relevant cited laws within this paragraph. The Commonwealth denies that Muggy21 engaged in any such actions at the time of the incident, or acted in their official capacity.
2. The Commonwealth denies paragraph 2 in its entirety.
3. The Commonwealth affirms Paragraph 3, in so far as it relates to the actions of the Commonwealth and its attorney general in their official capacity. The Commonwealth denies such actions are required from state actors when acting in their private capacity as citizens.

C. Equal Protection Discrimination.
1. The Commonwealth denies paragraph 1 in its entirety.
2. The Commonwealth affirms paragraph 2 in its entirety.
3. The Commonwealth denies paragraph 3 in its entirety.

D. Ultra Vires Acts; The Commonwealth Can’t Claim Sovereign Immunity
1. The Commonwealth denies paragraph 1 in its entirety.
2. The Commonwealth neither affirms or denies paragraph 2.

II. DEFENCES
1. Dearev committed the above actions ascribed by the plaintiff outside his official capacity as Attorney General. Policing, use of force, or other forms of state sanctioned violence are not part of the Attorney General's duties under the Executive Standards Act (2021). The actions of Dearev clearly were for the purpose of obtaining a head from Muggy21 as a private citizen, and can not be construed as actions of the Commonwealth or its agents. As such, plaintiff has no standing to bring suit against the Commonwealth or the former acting Attorney General in his official capacity.

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.

SIGNED: Ibney0
DATED: This 21st day of August, 2025

 

Motion


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

The Commonwealth respectfully requests this case, as it relates to the Commonwealth of Redmont, be dismissed:

1. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Under Rule 5.12

Under Court Rules and Procedures ("CRP") 5.12, the plaintiff must possess sufficient standing to bring suit against an individual. To establish standing, the plaintiff must show they:

  1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
  2. The cause of injury was against the law.
  3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

CRP 5.12; see also CRP 2.1.

Plaintiff alleges that Dearev attacked him while he was at spawn. Nothing in plaintiff's allegations, even in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes that Dearev acted within his duties as acting attorney general. The attorney general does not act within their official capacity all times of the day. They may only be said to act within their official capacity when performing actions related to their function under the law.

The Executive Standards Act ("ESA") (2021) charges the attorney general with:

(a) Defending the national legal interest.
(b) Investigating and prosecuting on behalf of the Federal Government.
(c) Acting ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction.
(d) Managing Freedom of Information requests.

ESA Sec. 8 (1)(a)-(d) et. seq.

Under the applicable law, none of Dearev's actions alleged by the plaintiff comport to fall within any of these legal duties. For this reason, Plaintiff has not established within their allegations that Dearev acted in this case as an agent of the Commonwealth of Redmont, and as such, lacks standing to bring forth this lawsuit under CRP 2.1 (1).

2. Lack of Claim under CRP 5.5

The Commonwealth additionally asserts that the case should be dismissed for similar reasons under CRP 5.5. Plaintiff fails to properly establish that the Commonwealth is involved in this case whatsoever. The allegations establish that two private citizens were involved in a fight. No fact alleged establishes that the Commonwealth or its agents were involved.

SIGNED: Ibney0
DATED: This 21st day of August, 2025

 
Ibney00 said:

Motion


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

The Commonwealth respectfully requests this case, as it relates to the Commonwealth of Redmont, be dismissed:

1. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Under Rule 5.12

Under Court Rules and Procedures ("CRP") 5.12, the plaintiff must possess sufficient standing to bring suit against an individual. To establish standing, the plaintiff must show they:

  1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
  2. The cause of injury was against the law.
  3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

CRP 5.12; see also CRP 2.1.

Plaintiff alleges that Dearev attacked him while he was at spawn. Nothing in plaintiff's allegations, even in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes that Dearev acted within his duties as acting attorney general. The attorney general does not act within their official capacity all times of the day. They may only be said to act within their official capacity when performing actions related to their function under the law.

The Executive Standards Act ("ESA") (2021) charges the attorney general with:

(a) Defending the national legal interest.
(b) Investigating and prosecuting on behalf of the Federal Government.
(c) Acting ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction.
(d) Managing Freedom of Information requests.

ESA Sec. 8 (1)(a)-(d) et. seq.

Under the applicable law, none of Dearev's actions alleged by the plaintiff comport to fall within any of these legal duties. For this reason, Plaintiff has not established within their allegations that Dearev acted in this case as an agent of the Commonwealth of Redmont, and as such, lacks standing to bring forth this lawsuit under CRP 2.1 (1).

2. Lack of Claim under CRP 5.5

The Commonwealth additionally asserts that the case should be dismissed for similar reasons under CRP 5.5. Plaintiff fails to properly establish that the Commonwealth is involved in this case whatsoever. The allegations establish that two private citizens were involved in a fight. No fact alleged establishes that the Commonwealth or its agents were involved.

SIGNED: Ibney0
DATED: This 21st day of August, 2025

Click to expand...

May I respond?
 

Motion


RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS


A -> Personal Jurisdiction is Invoked.

1. The Commonwealth prays for dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff failed "to properly establish that the Commonwealth is involved in this case whatsoever." (Motion to Dismiss)
2. This confuses Plaintiff, as the Commonwealth in its answer denies aspects of the case that are outside of the scope of the Complaint and its answer.
3. For example, the Commonwealth proffers that "the Commonwealth denies this was for the purpose of intimidation, and denies it caused severe bodily injury to Muggy21" (Answer II (11)). If the Commonwealth is not involved in this case whatsoever, on what basis does the Commonwealth deny?
4. A denial in an answer requires prerequisite knowledge. In order for the Commonwealth to assert that intimidation was not used, this implies that the Commonwealth has or had knowledge of the action.
5. Further, the Commonwealth denies that the RCLU was conducting "politically protected speech." This is a question of fact, which isn't a basis to dismiss.
6. Given this, the Commonwealth is a proper party to respond to this matter.


B -> Limited Applicability of the Executive Standards Act Applicability

1. The ESA defines what an Attorney General lawfully may do; it does not define the limits of government liability. An official’s misconduct under color of office is not transformed into a private act merely because the statute does not list ‘violence’ as a duty.
2. The Commonwealth's answer to Plaintiff's Ultra Vires Acts claim is confusing. Plaintiff argues that the Commonwealth's agent, Dearev, acted outside of official authority. The Commonwealth's claim that "use of force, or other forms of state sanctioned violence are not part of the Attorney General's duties" is not in dispute. Plaintiff and Respondent agree on this point, yet the Commonwealth believes that it can escape liability this way. They can not.
3. The Attorney General committed violence while holding office. The Commonwealth did not share any case law to demonstrate a distinct and coherent theory that would clearly demonstrate when a government official performs private acts.
4. For example, if a rogue DCT Secretary implemented unlawful policies that exceeded his authority, the Commonwealth's defense that this is a private act is nonsensical; An office holder is presumed to use his powers lawfully, until otherwise proven.
5. In Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5, the Court found that the President exceeded her authority by executing a departmental purchase herself, an act inconsistent with the duties of her office, yet the Commonwealth still retained the benefit of the racetrack. This demonstrates that even when an officer acts ultra vires, the resulting act is not wholly “private” where the Commonwealth receives and maintains the fruits of that act.
6. Therefore, the Commonwealth cannot simply disclaim liability by labeling its official’s misconduct a “private act.” When a constitutional violation or unlawful act is committed under color of office, and the Commonwealth benefits or exercises authority through it, liability attaches to the Commonwealth itself.


C -> The Commonwealth benefit from the AG's actions
1. The Commonwealth benefited by silencing Muggy21, which curtailed immediate criticism of its officials and policies.
2. The violent suppression reduced the RCLU’s ability to spread messages challenging unlawful arrests and state overreach.
3. This chilling effect preserved the Government’s control over political discourse by deterring others from engaging in protected expression.
4. As a result, the Attorney General’s ultra vires acts strengthened the Commonwealth’s hold on power at the expense of constitutional freedoms.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top