Lawsuit: Pending roy405 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] FCR 42

Johnes

Johnes

Citizen
Senator
Congressional Staff
Oakridge Resident
Health Department
6th Anniversary Grave Digger Statesman
Johnes
Johnes
Senator
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
94

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


roy405
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 17th of January 2026, roy405, the Plaintiff, was apprehended by a DHS Lieutenant, Multiman155, based on a flawed and unenforceable warrant, that the individual in question misled the court about. Plaintiff's rights were therefore violated and he is owed due compensation.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. roy405
2. Department of Homeland Security
3. Multiman155 (At the time when the violation took place, a lieutenant of the DHS)

II. FACTS
1. At or before the arrest took place, Plaintiff had around 128 wanted stars, equating to 128 murders. (P-001)
2. Defendant requested an arrest warrant, requesting: (P-001)
(1) teleport Roy405 to /spawn using any tools available to any officer thereof, and arrest Roy405; or, in the alternative
(2) be given permission to break blocks on Roy405's player Build World plots to arrest Roy405; or, in the alternative
(3) instantly jail Roy405 using the /jail command, or a related command.
3. In support thereof, Defendant supplied the Court two images, one showing Plaintiff's alleged "impenetrable box" in the player build world, the other a list of wanted subjects where Plaintiff has 127 stars. (P-001)
4. The Court granted Defendant's request in full. (P-001)
5. Defendant followed up, stating that Defendant teleported Plaintiff to spawn using /spawn and arrested and jailed Plaintiff. Defendant posted a screenshot of a command, teleporting Plaintiff to spawn. (P-001)
6. Defendant used Department of Public Affairs powers to teleport Plaintiff: (P-003, page 365)
## 📥 Teleport### ⌨️ ActionAction: ``Target Player to Employee``### ℹ️ InformationEmployee: ``Multiman155``Player: ``roy405``Reason: ``WARRANT - https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/lt-franciscus-arrestwarrant-request.34487/#post-132270``Location: ``Reveille 2724, 71, 4153``Region (if applicable): ``spawn``
7. Multiman155 announced Plaintiff's successful capture in Defendant's chats ("DHS Logs"). (P-002, pages 106 and 107)
8. Shortly after Plaintiff's arrest, the DHS Logs state: (P-002, page 106)
Investigator Culls Ashley » we just tped him spawn
Police Officer Jayessar Kiwi » Did someone just arrest him?
Police Officer Jayessar Kiwi » Oh
Investigator Culls Ashley » idk
[Sen.] Senate President Multiman155 » I got a warrant to tp him to spawn and arrest
him
Police Officer Jayessar Kiwi » WELL DONE
Police Officer Jayessar Kiwi » Clapping hands emoji | celebration emoji
[Staff] Archivist Hellside S. Burnton » Arrested???
Investigator Culls Ashley » yes
9. Shortly thereafter, the following conversation happened in the DHS Logs: (P-002, pages 107 and 108)
Police Officer Jayessar Kiwi » So jsrkiwi's dumb question of the day - what law provides
for arrest warrants like Roy's?
Investigator Culls Ashley » thats a good question
[...]
Investigator Culls Ashley » lol
[Sen.] Senate President Multiman155 » executive standards act, probably
[Sen.] Senate President Multiman155 » there's also authority to use them to enter
private property under JSA 17(1)(c)
[Sen.] Senate President Multiman155 » Warrants, generally, proceed from Judicial
Power under Const. 13
Police Officer Jayessar Kiwi » Thnx
10. Plaintiff was subsequently jailed for a total time of 32 hours and fined $44,800. (P-004)
11. Plaintiff was later bailed out, serving only 1 hour and 22 minutes. (P-004)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Warrant was unlawful
The Warrant issued to Defendant was unlawfully granted, its legal foundations nonexistent in the present JSA and in the old JSA.

A. There was no legal foundation to grant the warrant
Defendant, as pointed out in fact #2, requested for the following:
The DHS therefore asks for a warrant to:
(1) teleport Roy405 to /spawn using any tools available to any officer thereof, and arrestRoy405; or, in the alternative
(2) be given permission to break blocks on Roy405's player Build World plots to arrestRoy405; or, in the alternative
(3) instantly jail Roy405 using the /jail command, or a related command.
Click to expand...

Defendant's request unlawfully asked to teleport Plaintiff to spawn, or break blocks in Plaintiff's player build world, or instantly jail him.

Both the old JSA and new JSA allow only for specific warrants.

The new JSA's Part IV states the following:

PART IV — WARRANTS​

1. Warrant Authority
(1) A court may hear a warrant application to authorise the Commonwealth to take an action that would otherwise be unconstitutional.

(2) After considering an application for a warrant, a court may:
(a) Refuse to issue the warrant;
(b) Issue the warrant without modification; or
(c) Modify and issue the warrant.

2. Search Warrants
(1) A Search Warrant permits an authorised officer to enter private property, inspect assets, or access digital documents for the purpose of locating evidence, contraband, or any materials relevant to an active investigation or legal proceeding.

(2) A search warrant must specify the property, assets, or documents being searched in as much detail as possible.

(3) This warrant can be requested by authorised members in the DOJ, DHS, and DOC.
(a) The Secretaries of the DOJ, DHS, and DOC are authorized members for the purposes of §2(3)
(b) The Secretaries of the DOJ, DHS, and DOC are empowered to designate employees of their respective Departments as authorized members for the purposes of §2(3).

3. Asset Seizure Warrants
(1) An Asset Seizure Warrant permits an authorised officer to seize assets when an individual does not have sufficient monetary funds to pay a court order or unsettled fines.

(2) An asset seizure warrant must not be issued for a fine less than two months old, or unless the authorised officer has provided the debtor with at least five days' notice of the intention to seek the warrant and of its consequences.

(3) An asset seizure warrant may also be used to enforce the transfer of assets under legal process, including, without limitation, the compulsory acquisition of property through eminent domain and the seizure of financial assets by the relevant authority.

(4) An asset seizure warrant must specify the assets being seized in as much detail as possible.

(5) The Debtor must be given a 5-day notice by the DHS for any debt collection through an asset seizure warrant. The Debtor must be informed that they must pay the outstanding amount due within 5 days, or their assets will be seized to cover the outstanding debt.

(6) This warrant can be requested by authorised members in the DOJ, DHS, and DOC.
(a) The Secretaries of the DOJ, DHS, and DOC are authorized members for the purposes of §3(6)
(b) The Secretaries of the DOJ, DHS, and DOC are empowered to designate employees of their respective Departments as authorized members for the purposes of §3(6).

4. Arrest Warrants
(1) An Arrest Warrant authorises an authorised officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual.

(2) This warrant can only be executed by authorised members in the DHS.

(3) This warrant can be requested by authorised members in the DHS.
(a) The Secretary of the DHS is an authorized member for the purposes of §4(3)
(b) The Secretary of the DHS is empowered to designate employees of the Department as authorized members for the purposes of §4(3)

5. Investigative Warrants
(1) An Investigative Warrant authorises a Detective, accompanied or unaccompanied, to enter private property in order to search for clues relating to an active case.
Click to expand...

The old JSA's § 8 states the following:
8 - Warrants
(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. Staff will be required to assist with searching storage containers if required, however the Officer will not have direct access. Search Warrants must detail exactly what is being requested and judicial officers must include any modifications to the request they have made when approving the warrant. This warrant can be requested by authorized members in the DoJ, DHS, and DoC.
b. Asset Seizure - to seize assets when an individual does not have sufficient monetary funds to pay a court order or unsettled fines. The unpaid fines must have been standing for at least 2 months and can be seen in the DoJ DHS #fines channel. A DHS employee must also /mail the person about their fines at least three days prior to requesting an asset seizure warrant. If a government agency requires an asset to be transferred to itself within its lawful actions (ie: Eminent Domain by the DCT or Seizing Bank assets by the DOC), they may request a warrant or ask the DHS to do so on their behalf to be able to gain possession of said asset. Asset Warrants must detail exactly what is being seized and judicial officers must include any modifications to the request they made when approving the warrant.
c. Arrest Warrant - for entering private property to arrest a wanted individual. This warrant can only be executed by authorized members in the DHS.

d. Investigative - Expresses permission for a Detective, accompanied or unaccompanied, to enter private property in order to search for clues relating to an active case.
Click to expand...

Both of these laws only allow for the following types of warrants:
1. to search someone,
2. to seize someone's assets,
3. to enter someone's private property to arrest them, and
4. to investigate someone by means requested.

The Warrant aforementioned does not fit any of these types of warrants, and is therefore unlawful, as it calls to teleport Plaintiff to spawn.

2. On Compensatory Damages
Because the Warrant was unlawful, Plaintiff's arrest was therefore unlawful as well.

At the time the arrest took place, the penalty for mass murder was 3.5 Penalty Units. Because Plaintiff committed 128 murders, the fine was $44,800. Along with that, Plaintiff was given 32 hours of jail time and served only 1 hour and 22 minutes, which equates to $4400, a total of $49,200.

The Criminal Code Act's Part I § 6(1)(c) states that: "If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences."

Even though Plaintiff is guilty of committing the murders, the method of the arrest, and by extension, the Warrant, was egregious enough, that it should warrant the same relief as if Plaintiff was not guilty of said crimes.

3. On Loss of Enjoyment
Plaintiff is a known criminal that likes to engage in the criminal side of Redmont. Plaintiff's enjoyment on the server comes from engaging in the criminal RP.

Defendant, by directly and unfairly teleporting Plaintiff with an unlawful warrant, caused Loss of Enjoyment for Plaintiff.

4. On Punitive Damages
Defendant's request for the Warrant, as we have shown, is unlawful and is not based on any legal ground whatsoever.

Multiman155 even shows this in DHS Logs, by stating:
[Sen.] Senate President Multiman155 » executive standards act, probably
[Sen.] Senate President Multiman155 » there's also authority to use them to enter
private property under JSA 17(1)(c)
[Sen.] Senate President Multiman155 » Warrants, generally, proceed from Judicial
Power under Const. 13
Click to expand...
This shows that Multiman155 was himself unsure of the legal grounds behind the Warrant and therefore Defendant by extension was liable.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $49,200 in Compensatory Damages.
2. $50,000 in Consequential Damages for Loss of Enjoyment.
3. $100,000 in Punitive Damages for Defendant's conduct.
4. 30% of the relief sought in Legal Fees.

See P-001

See P-002

See P-003

1778876003725.png

Witnesses:
DHS Whistleblower (Their identity will be revealed in closed court)
Multiman155
roy405

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 15th day of May 2026



1778876059206.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause- roy405 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] FCR 42

Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that his arrest on 17 January 2026, carried out by DHS Lieutenant Multiman155, was unlawful by reason of a defective warrant. Central to Plaintiff's theory of relief is the contention that the warrant lacked lawful authority and that, as a consequence, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages totaling in excess of $199,000.

Position of the Court

For the purpose of this order, the Court considers all contentions in the Complaint in the most favourable light for the Plaintiff.


According to the Complaint, Lt Multiman155 had requested a warrant seeking a player be teleported to spawn. The Court will specifically not opine on the legality of such action at this stage. Exhibit P-003, on page 365/644 shows Multiman155 performing a test teleport on Culls and then on the Plaintiff himself. According to the warrant application, the Plaintiff was present in the PlayerBuildWorld, territory that is clearly otuside the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont. The National Borders Act is the authorative source for the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, generally.


THEREFORE, the Court is concerned it lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter in its entirety. The PlayerBuildWorld is not in Redmont and the Constitution does not generally apply in international zones.

Plaintiff is hereby ordered to SHOW CAUSE as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice.

So ordered,
Judge Mug



@Johnes You have 48 Hours to offer a response. Extensions will be granted if needed.
 
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause- roy405 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] FCR 42

Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that his arrest on 17 January 2026, carried out by DHS Lieutenant Multiman155, was unlawful by reason of a defective warrant. Central to Plaintiff's theory of relief is the contention that the warrant lacked lawful authority and that, as a consequence, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages totaling in excess of $199,000.

Position of the Court

For the purpose of this order, the Court considers all contentions in the Complaint in the most favourable light for the Plaintiff.


According to the Complaint, Lt Multiman155 had requested a warrant seeking a player be teleported to spawn. The Court will specifically not opine on the legality of such action at this stage. Exhibit P-003, on page 365/644 shows Multiman155 performing a test teleport on Culls and then on the Plaintiff himself. According to the warrant application, the Plaintiff was present in the PlayerBuildWorld, territory that is clearly otuside the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont. The National Borders Act is the authorative source for the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, generally.


THEREFORE, the Court is concerned it lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter in its entirety. The PlayerBuildWorld is not in Redmont and the Constitution does not generally apply in international zones.

Plaintiff is hereby ordered to SHOW CAUSE as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice.

So ordered,
Judge Mug



@Johnes You have 48 Hours to offer a response. Extensions will be granted if needed.
Click to expand...

Brief


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

Your Honour,
Plaintiff responds to the Court’s Order to Show Cause as follows:

I. Overview of the facts

A. Warrant’s scope
The Warrant in question asked to teleport Plaintiff to the place of spawn using any means possible to Defendant. The Court granted said Warrant, stating the following:

[...]
The Court expands the warrant to include Redmont, constituent and supporting lands and international territory usually frequented by citizens.
Click to expand...
Therefore the Court expanded the jurisdiction of the Warrant to “constituent and supporting lands and international territory usually frequented by citizens.”

Plaintiff notes that PBW would fit the description of “international territory usually frequented by citizens” as the Court issuing the Warrant has defined.

B. Defendant’s actions after the Warrant was granted
Defendant provided a response to the Court issuing the Warrant on the same day, stating:
Your Honor,

I have teleported Roy405 to /spawn consistent with this warrant. The criminal has been arrested and jailed.
Click to expand...
Following this statement, Defendant posted a screenshot confirming that Plaintiff was teleported to spawn.

Plaintiff in P-003 shows that DPA powers were used by Defendant, but declines to comment on the legality of this action, as the Warrant request asked that the Court grant Defendant to use “any tools available to any officer thereof,” which could be construed as to allow any inter-departmental means to be used.

Therefore the only possible place that the arrest could’ve happened at was the spawn which is fully in Redmont’s jurisdiction.

II. Legal Overview

A. Redmont’s Jurisdiction
As the Court has cited the National Borders Act (“NBA”), Plaintiff will focus on that act and its wording. As of filing this response, the NBA states:
3 - Terms
(1) The President is authorised to establish a town/city in the Reveille Isles.

4 - Geography

(1) Redmont
(a) Redmont is characterised as an archipelagic nation consisting of the Reveille Isles.
(b) The capital city of Redmont is the City of Reveille.

(2) Reveille Isles.
(a) The Reveille Islands serve as the mainland of Redmont and host the nation's capital, Reveille. Reveille is located on the southern two islands with smaller settlements to the north.
Click to expand...
The NBA does not explicitly state that it shall define jurisdiction of Redmont, only defines the two geographical boundaries that Redmont is constituted of.

The only case law Plaintiff found on the NBA was in Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18 which is a case around contract law and whether contracts formed in the wild and with consideration in the wild (and by extension outside of Redmont) are valid.

But because the case at hand pertains to the jurisdiction of Redmont’s constitution, Plaintiff cannot ascertain that [2026] DCR 18 in any way confirms that Redmont has jurisdiction over the wild or other international territory, therefore we cannot use case law to determine the extent of Redmont’s jurisdiction.

B. Constitutional violations
The Constitution provides players the following rights (Part V § 35(7), § 35(13), and § 35(14)):
(7) Rights cannot be withheld on the basis of criminality, rights are inalienable.

(13) Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

(14) Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

(15) Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Click to expand...
The aforestated rights give players inalienable rights, equality before the law, right to liberty, security and life and against unreasonable search or seizure.
In AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98 the Court stated the following:
2. However, other claims are upheld. The arresting officer admitted under oath that he used a glitch to enter the Plaintiff's private property to make the arrest. This conduct is not only highly improper but also a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Commonwealth’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms, specifically:
  • Article XV: Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
  • Article XIV: Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
3. The officer's failure to secure an arrest warrant violated the Judicial Standards Act, and as an agent of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is held liable for these violations. The Plaintiff's claim of emotional distress is supported by the fact that the officer illegally entered his property and dragged him out of a three-story building.
Click to expand...
While in the cited case, the officer in question entered private property illegally, the argument applies the same to illegal and unenforceable warrants.

III. Analysis

We will analyze each factual points raised by us by the provided legal background in turn:

A. The Arrest took place in Redmont
With the provided evidence of P-001 and P-003, it is more than probable that the arrest (therefore the violation) occurred on Redmontian soil, was unconstitutional and Plaintiff’s rights were violated in both PBW and Redmont.

The NBA would apply, since the location of spawn is fully inside Reveille, and therefore the Constitution and the Courts have jurisdiction over the arrest. Because violation of Plaintiff’s rights happened as a result of the arrest and that the player build world served no role in the arrest, the Court has full jurisdiction over the issue.

Plaintiff further notes that the Court issuing the Warrant gave Defendant the jurisdiction “to include Redmont, constituent and supporting lands and international territory usually frequented by citizens.” As Plaintiff argued in the overview of the facts of this brief, the player build world would fit the definition of “constituent and supporting lands and international territory usually frequented by citizens.” It would be an unfair dichotomy to give Defendant the right to use a Warrant in international territories and then reject a complaint based on issues of jurisdiction, as it invites further abuse of power.

B. Constitutional Rights of Plaintiff would be violated in either territory
Notwithstanding the arguments provided by Plaintiff for the place the arrest took place, Plaintiff’s rights would be violated in either place the arrest would’ve taken place.

As Plaintiff argued above, the Court issuing a warrant giving Defendant the jurisdiction to pursue Plaintiff in player build world and then potentially dismissing a complaint based on the issue of jurisdiction would violate Plaintiff’s rights under § 35 of the Constitution, mainly § 35(14). Such action would be against the principles of fundamental justice and would induce an unfair advantage for Defendant, allowing him to pursue potentially illegal actions without facing the repercussions.

Furthermore, the NBA does not explicitly define that Redmont’s jurisdiction applies only to Redmont and only defines the aisles that Redmont is made of. The case law on this issue is lacking and therefore the Court cannot ascertain the invalidity of the complaint based on this fact alone.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the brief provided, Plaintiff requests that the complaint is not dismissed with prejudice.



Motion


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

Your Honour,
Plaintiff respectfully moves that Your Honour recuse yourself from this trial.

The Presiding Officer has issued the Warrant in P-001, therefore Plaintiff feels that their judgment in regards of the legality of the Warrant would not be unbiased.

 
Johnes said:

Motion


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

Your Honour,
Plaintiff respectfully moves that Your Honour recuse yourself from this trial.

The Presiding Officer has issued the Warrant in P-001, therefore Plaintiff feels that their judgment in regards of the legality of the Warrant would not be unbiased.

Click to expand...

Denied. The mere assertion of the potential of bias due to actions this Court took several months ago is hardly persuasive to indicate that this Court would bias against Plaintiff today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top