Lawsuit: Dismissed PluraGlasshouse vs The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plura72

Plura72

Professional Builder
Construction & Transport Department
Education Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Statesman
PluraGlasshouse
PluraGlasshouse
Guide
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
244

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


PluraGlasshouse
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The commonwealth has passed and enacted a bill that violates constitutional freedoms.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. PluraGlasshouse
2. Commonwealth
3. RookieBlue14 (bill author)
4. Multiman155 (wittness)

II. FACTS
1. The constitution says "(15) Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
2. The Private Property Protection Act was signed by President pepecuu on the 6th of november 2025
3. The private property protection Act guarantees that:
  1. A government official acting in their official capacity is exempt from the crime of trespass if they are otherwise banned from property open to the public.
    1. A government official is considered acting in their official capacity if they are performing duties for their role, such as conducting a building inspection, attempting to apprehend a criminal, responding to a medical emergency, etc.
    2. If a government official engages in activities that are outside of their official duties while on a property they otherwise would be banned from, they may be prosecuted for trespass.
Click to expand...
4. By allowing goverment officials to trespass on private property, that constitutes an unreasonable search of property

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Constitutional Rights Violation (15th right)

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Private Property Protection Act to be repealled.

DemocracyCraft

Government Thread 'Constitution'

Constitution.png


PREAMBLE

We the people, of the Commonwealth of Redmont, in order to form a more perfect country, establish this Constitution to guarantee the preservation and protection of Justice, promote the general welfare of our citizens, and secure the liberty of our participation in the governance of this country. All citizens and the Government of the Commonwealth of Redmont will abide by these here set principles to unite as an indissoluble nation, the Commonwealth of Redmont.

government.png


Redmont’s Government has three branches: the Legislative, Executive...
  • Like
  • Love
  • Aye


Rookieblue14

Act of Congress Thread 'Private Property Protection Act'

House Vote: 5-2-1
Senate Vote: 4-0-0

A
BILL
To

Establish Private Property Protections​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Private Property Protection Act.'

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Representative Rookieblue14.

(4) This Act has...


1762469594910.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 6th day of November 2025

 

Writ of Summons

@Attorney General , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of PluraGlasshouse vs The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117

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.

 
Present, your honour.
 
72 Hours to File your Answer to Complaint
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - Rule 5.5, Lack of Claim; Rule 2.1, Standing Application

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The Plaintiff's beautifully simplistic complaint has alleged that "By allowing goverment [sic] officials to trespass on private property, that constitutes an unreasonable search of property". This is apparently the only claim to any violation of rights within the complaint, despite being located in the facts section. It is important to note that the onus is on the Plaintiff to make a cognisable claim - it is neither on the Court nor the Defence to turn this argument into something it is not.

The law involved in this case makes two relevant changes from the previous law:

  1. There is no longer a provision explicitly stating that law enforcement officers may not use glitches to enter private property. This is already enforced by Staff, and thus there is no effective change.
  2. Law enforcement officers are able to enter properties that they have been banned from if they are entering in the course of their official duties.
In regards to the second point, this was already something that law enforcement officers were able to do through search warrants, as provided by the Judicial Standards Act:
(1) The court may issue warrants - court orders that allow actions that would otherwise be unlawful - for the following:
a. Search - Expresses permission for a Police Officer, Investigator, or Compliance Officer, accompanied or unaccompanied, to enter private property, view private assets, or access digital documents in order to search for evidence or contraband.
[...]
c. Arrest Warrant - for entering private property to arrest a wanted individual. This warrant can only be executed by authorized members in the DHS.
Click to expand...

"Allowing goverment [sic] officials to trespass on private property" has been a privilege afforded to law enforcement officers since 2022 at the latest, because our Constitution allows for reasonable limits upon rights. Even if the relief in this case were to be granted, the law would revert to its prior state, and law enforcement officers would still be able to enter private property in the course of their official duties. Further, they would still be able to enter private property that they were explicitly banned from, simply under slightly different conditions. The conditions under which trespass law can be legally circumvented are not at issue in this case - under both new and old law, this can easily be done. Plaintiff merely alleges that the ability to legally 'trespass' at all is a breach of Constitutional rights.

Therefore, seeing as no action has been taken or is suddenly allowed under this law which could even reasonably affect someone's Constitutional rights, neither the Plaintiff, nor the public at large, has been affected by an application of the law through the passage of this Act. The Plaintiff does not allege any personal harm, and no one has been subject to any effect due to the passage of the law in question. For that reason, this case does not meet the first requirement under Rule 2.1, Standing Application, and should be dismissed.

Further, the Plaintiff's sole claim is that "Allowing goverment [sic] officials to trespass on private property" is a breach of Constitutional rights. He does not claim that specifically allowing them to do so without a warrant under the conditions provided in the Private Property Protection Act is unconstitutional. Yet, he only challenges the passage of this law in particular, despite the fact that law enforcement officers were already afforded the ability to enter private property, even when banned from that property. Plaintiff's claim is therefore not cognisable, and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5, Lack of Claim.


Should the Court accept the above motion, the Defence would like to note that since the lifting of the Hon. Justice Matthew100x's injunction which barred Plaintiff from filing any cases for a period of two months, Plaintiff has:
  • Been charged with one count of Frivolous Court Case ([2025] DCR 71), with Hon. Mag. Muggy21 noting a "history as a vexatious litigator",
  • Been found in Contempt once ([2025] DCT 80),
  • Had at least three cases dismissed for lack of claim or lack of standing (see above, & [2025] SCR 16), and
  • Been temporarily deported for fabricating evidence before Congress.
The Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act now empowers Judicial Officers to issue punishments against those who abuse our legal system through a system of conduct strikes. The Defence respectfully requests that, if the above motion is sustained, Plaintiff be found guilty of one count of Frivolous Court Case, and be issued at least one conduct strike in order to discourage or prevent this type of behaviour going forward.
 
Given the inactivity then conviction of Judge Xtub I'd like to request that whoever is placed on this case grant an extension on the Defence's answer to complaint until the outstanding motion is ruled on.
 
Kaiserin_ said:
Given the inactivity then conviction of Judge Xtub I'd like to request that whoever is placed on this case grant an extension on the Defence's answer to complaint until the outstanding motion is ruled on.
Click to expand...
This is approved.

I am not the PO just wanted to let you know.
 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Local Rules for Judge Mug
In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.



Judge Ameslap's approval of the extension remains in place. I'll be the PO on this matter.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

PluraGlasshouse
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that the Constitution says that.
2. AFFIRM that the President signed that.
3. AFFIRM that the Private Property Protection Act guarantees that.
4. DENY that allowing government officials to trespass on private property is an unreasonable search of property.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Constitution allows for reasonable limits on rights, and furthermore, only protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Law enforcement officers entering property they were banned from in the course of their official duties, for purpose of enacting the law as written by Congress, is very reasonable.
2. The Private Property Protection Act is not the only law which allows government officials to enter private property in the course of their duties. It is also not the only law which allows government officials to enter property they were explicitly banned from. This has been a privilege afforded to law enforcement in some way or another for years at this point.
3. Granting Plaintiff's prayer for relief would not address their grievance as stated.
4. Plaintiff's claim is so barebones as to not possibly be able to overcome the balance of probabilities.
5. Even if we take Plaintiff's claim to be that allowing law enforcement officers to bypass the warrant process to enter property is unconstitutional - which would be essentially creating something out of nothing - this argument still fails. To allow someone to wholesale prevent or seriously hinder law enforcement from apprehending them simply by placing a sign banning all officers from the property would be entirely unreasonable. Congress had a legitimate interest in passing a law to prevent this outcome without the need to file a warrant for every single entry, and doing so was not a meaningful restriction on constitutional rights.

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 17th day of November, 2025

 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order of Dismissal without prejudice

Plaintiff approaches the Court requesting that this Court “repeal” the Private Property Protection Act.

First, the relief is unconstitutional. Only the Legislature holds the power to “create and amend rules and laws” (see Const § (2) (1)). For that purpose, the Court lacks prerequisite jurisdiction and dismisses this case.

That being said, the Court will see the Complaint in the best light and assume Plaintiff meant a different cognizable relief. Under this assumption, the Court performs an analysis.

  1. PUBLIC INTEREST SUITS MUST ASSERT A COGNIZABLE AND DISTINGUISHED HARM

    The Court is not the legislature, we may only read the law and interpret it; the Legislature has the prerogative to amend our laws as they see fit, within the bounds of the Constitution and of the Courts. In order for the Courts to exercise their powers, there must exist a controversy and some other distinguishable facet that requires judicial intervention; Essentially, you must approach the Court with a controversy and said controversy must, on its own, be narrowly crafted as to reasonable support a unique controversy. The Complaint fails to highlight a harm, even a theoretical harm, and for that purpose it must fail. Further, the Complaint fails to invoke any precedence that would otherwise permit a suit without standing; The Court will not invent standing absent a showing that Rule 2.1 should be fulfilled if acting under a public interest suit.

For the above reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. This constitutes the full order of the Court.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top