Lawsuit: In Session xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 109

O

OwnedBlock

Citizen
Supporter
State Department
Homeland Security Department
Construction & Transport Department
Change Maker Lawmaker
OwnedBlock
OwnedBlock
Electoral Officer
Joined
Jun 10, 2026
Messages
357

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

The defendant, Commonwealth of Redmont, has seized plaintiff's entire balance (as indicated by exhibit P-001 filed later in this post) seemingly without providing proper justification, in a way that clearly infringes on the enjoyment of their funds and plaintiff's constitutional rights (The Constitution, specifically Part V, Section 35, right 15 and 17).

Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order the Commonwealth to return the funds ($147696.08) until this case has been adjourned or until Commonwealth acts in a constitutionally-consistent manner to seize them. Plaintiff respectfully requests a swift ruling on this motion.


Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Commonwealth seized $147,696.08 from my personal balance on 06 Nov 26, citing an alleged continued threat to player safety or enjoyment arising from the commission of a crime under JSA Part II, s6(1).

I have not been charged with any offence, nor have I been notified of an investigation into my conduct. Therefore, I consider the Commonwealth's actions an infringement of my constitutional rights:

"(15) Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

The seizure of my entire balance without justification, let alone a criminal charge, cannot be considered anything other than an infringement of that protection.

"(17) Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them."

The protection against arbitrary detention and the right to be informed of the reasons for state action must extend, in principle, to the deprivation of a person's property.

The Commonwealth cannot simply point to Section 6(1) and treat that as sufficient justification. It needs to demonstrate that the circumstances actually warranted its use. Otherwise, what is to prevent the prosecuting authority from seizing any citizen's entire balance, without charge, notice or explanation, simply by alleging a threat to player safety or enjoyment?

I therefore seek the immediate return of my seized assets, together with significant penalties against the Commonwealth to deter future breaches of constitutional rights and prevent the misuse of its statutory powers.

I further seek a determination that any future seizure under these provisions must be supported by identifiable criminal conduct and sufficient evidence to establish that the statutory threshold has been met.

The Commonwealth must not be permitted to exercise extraordinary powers without justification or accountability, and there must be meaningful consequences when it fails to do so.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES​

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

II. FACTS​

1. On 6th of November, 2026, the DHS/DoJ has seized $147696.08 from the plaintiff. (P-001)
2. There was no ongoing threat to player safety and enjoyment due to the commission of a crime by plaintiff.
3. No prior reason was given nor prior charge was laid behind the seizure of these funds via typical communication channels (Discord, DC Forums, ingame mail).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Conversion​

The Commonwealth has committed Conversion under the Redmont Civil Code Act, specifically Part VII, Section 7:
7. Conversion
Violation Type: Intentional
Remedy: Treble damages; Restitution
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and
(b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and
(c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by:
[...]
(iii) embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretences; or
[...]
Click to expand...

The Commonwealth has obtained the property by false pretences - there was no ongoing threat to player safety and enjoyment due to the commission of a crime by plaintiff, as alleged by fact 2. They could not have reasonably believed that they had lawful authority to take a citizen's entire balance for the commission of a crime which they consider to be so egregious that it posed a threat to ongoing threat to citizens and enjoyment, particularly when no charges have been laid against the plaintiff.

2. Violation of Constitutional Rights​

The Commonwealth has committed a violation of rights under the Constitution, specifically Part V, Section 35, right 15 and 17:
(15) Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

[...]

(17) Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.
Click to expand...

The Commonwealth has committed an unreasonable seizure of plaintiff's funds and not provided a reason behind the detention thereof through typical communication channels to plaintiff, as alleged by facts 2 and 3.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff hereby requests the court provide the following relief:
1a. Treble compensatory damages (RCCA, Part III, Section 2) of $443088.24, as permitted by definition of Conversion in the above-mentioned RCCA section.
OR In the event the court finds insufficient grounds to find defendant liable for Conversion as outlined:
1b. Restitution of the funds ($147696.08), pending Commonwealth's action in a more constitutionally-consistent method.
2. Punitive damages (RCCA, Part III, Section 3) of $50000 for this outrageous constitutional violation.
3. Legal fees (RCCA, Part III, Section 7) of 30% of the case value (equivalent to $147926.47 - or $59308.82 in case alternative prayer 1b is granted).

V. EVIDENCE​

1794136488526.png

VI. REPRESENTATION STATEMENT​

1794136502541.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 8th day of November 2026.

 
OwnedBlock said:

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

The defendant, Commonwealth of Redmont, has seized plaintiff's entire balance (as indicated by exhibit P-001 filed later in this post) seemingly without providing proper justification, in a way that clearly infringes on the enjoyment of their funds and plaintiff's constitutional rights (The Constitution, specifically Part V, Section 35, right 15 and 17).

Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order the Commonwealth to return the funds ($147696.08) until this case has been adjourned or until Commonwealth acts in a constitutionally-consistent manner to seize them. Plaintiff respectfully requests a swift ruling on this motion.

Click to expand...
The Emergency Injunction is granted. The Commonwealth is ordered to return the funds to the Plaintiff posthaste.

@Superwoops
 

Writ of Summons


The Attorney General (@Superwoops) is hereby commanded to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 109.

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.

 
Talion77 said:
The Emergency Injunction is granted. The Commonwealth is ordered to return the funds to the Plaintiff posthaste.

@Superwoops
Click to expand...
Upon further review, the Court is concerned that the motion for an Emergency Injunction does not sufficiently establish why it is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why it is within 24 hours.

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

Your Honor,
Denying someone the access to their entire balance, possibly as this matter takes weeks or months to go through the court system is irreparable harm, because the court would be denying the plaintiff access to invest the money, purchase property or perhaps start a business venture with it. With all due respect to the court, the amount is more than 100 thousand dollars and could surely be used in a more worthwhile manner than having it held by the Commonwealth during the time the matter is argued in Redmont courts.
 
OwnedBlock said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Your Honor,
Denying someone the access to their entire balance, possibly as this matter takes weeks or months to go through the court system is irreparable harm, because the court would be denying the plaintiff access to invest the money, purchase property or perhaps start a business venture with it. With all due respect to the court, the amount is more than 100 thousand dollars and could surely be used in a more worthwhile manner than having it held by the Commonwealth during the time the matter is argued in Redmont courts.
Click to expand...
If the Court would allow, the Commonwealth would like to respond to this brief and prove why precedent does not support granting such a motion.
Furthermore, I affirm that ameslap is assigned to this case and will be handling it moving forward.
 
Superwoops said:
If the Court would allow, the Commonwealth would like to respond to this brief and prove why precedent does not support granting such a motion.
Furthermore, I affirm that ameslap is assigned to this case and will be handling it moving forward.
Click to expand...
The Court usually does not permit responses to responses, however as the Commonwealth has not filed a brief on the matter yet, the Court will grant you 24 hours.
 

Motion

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

Your Honor,
as you have noted, permitting the Commonwealth to file such a brief would be a breach of procedure. Responses to responses are typically not permitted (Commonwealth of Redmont v. .SteelBirch6844 [2026] FCR 96, post #29).

In addition to this, the Commonwealth has now withheld all of the Plaintiff's personal funds for more than four days.

The EI seeks to mitigate the ongoing harm caused by the Cwth's failure to establish a case within a reasonable timeframe, particularly in circumstances where no charges have been laid. The plaintiff is no longer able to meet their property tax obligations, purchase food, and or operate their businesses effectively.

Allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a justification in response to a response, of which the rationale has not previously been disclosed to the plaintiff, would undermine procedural fairness and deny my client a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations raised.

If the Commonwealth is permitted to advance a justification for its actions, my clienmt must equally be afforded an opportunity to address the allegations or grounds for seizure. In these circumstances we are essentially engaging in the merits of the case. This would prolong the the harm that the EI seeks to prevent.

The EI serves to right an unsubstantiated and unconstitutional seizure of funding, which has taken place without charges laid. If the offense was so egregious then why has the Commonwealth taken so long to address the matter? Before this case being filed, it had told the plaintiff nothing in the way of justification for this action taken against them.

We respectfully request that the court progress the EI and hear the merits of the case in due process.

 
OwnedBlock said:

Motion

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

Your Honor,
as you have noted, permitting the Commonwealth to file such a brief would be a breach of procedure. Responses to responses are typically not permitted (Commonwealth of Redmont v. .SteelBirch6844 [2026] FCR 96, post #29).

In addition to this, the Commonwealth has now withheld all of the Plaintiff's personal funds for more than four days.

The EI seeks to mitigate the ongoing harm caused by the Cwth's failure to establish a case within a reasonable timeframe, particularly in circumstances where no charges have been laid. The plaintiff is no longer able to meet their property tax obligations, purchase food, and or operate their businesses effectively.

Allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a justification in response to a response, of which the rationale has not previously been disclosed to the plaintiff, would undermine procedural fairness and deny my client a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations raised.

If the Commonwealth is permitted to advance a justification for its actions, my clienmt must equally be afforded an opportunity to address the allegations or grounds for seizure. In these circumstances we are essentially engaging in the merits of the case. This would prolong the the harm that the EI seeks to prevent.

The EI serves to right an unsubstantiated and unconstitutional seizure of funding, which has taken place without charges laid. If the offense was so egregious then why has the Commonwealth taken so long to address the matter? Before this case being filed, it had told the plaintiff nothing in the way of justification for this action taken against them.

We respectfully request that the court progress the EI and hear the merits of the case in due process.

Click to expand...
Counsellor, as far as the Court is concerned, your motion is relying on false pretenses. To the courts, knowledge, the Plaintiff's personal funds have already been returned by the Government which has complied with the preliminary EI (see the spoiler).

Further, the rule that you may not respond to responses only applies to filings from parties, objections or motions for example. This was a response to an inquiry from the Court—as it is interested in hearing a counterargument, the motion to reconsider, insofar as to deny the response, is denied.
1794334764893.png
 
Your Honor @Talion77, I apologize, it was not my intent to deceive the court - I wasn't entirely aware of whether the government had returned the money pursuant to the EI or not. Upon seeing your screenshot and further review with my client, I can confirm it is so.
 
I hereby warn Counsellor @OwnedBlock not to engage in any further attempts to communicate with the presiding judicial officer in this case without including the other party. Any further attempts WILL be punished severely.
1794345124588.png
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief in Opposition of the Emergency Injunction

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth requests that the Court reject the Emergency Injunction.

I. Financial Deprivation does not Automatically Establish Irreparable Harm
In [2026] FCR 10, the Court explained that irreparable harm is an injury that cannot be reasonably remedied through a monetary award. Saying "The temporary loss of money is not an irreparable harm."

Similarly in [2023] FCR 77, the Court denied an emergency injunction because the alleged financial harm could be compensated by the Commonwealth after judgement.

II. No Explanation of Why the Hardship is Irreparable
The Plaintiff referred to possible investments, property purchases, or business ventures. They could also possibly do nothing.

The Plaintiff then alleged difficulty paying taxes, purchasing food, and operating businesses. Sure, there may be some need for funds; but the Plaintiff has failed to identify a specific tax amount, upcoming payment deadline, impending property loss, or business obligation demonstrating an injury that could not be reasonably remedied after judgement.

III. An EI Must Preserve the Practical Effects of Section 6(1)
The Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Section 6(1) permits punishment before trial where criminal conduct creates a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment.

Financial punishment ordinarily limits a person’s ability to spend, invest, or operate businesses. If those consequences alone justify an EI returning the funds until trial, Section 6(1) would lose its practical effect. The Court should therefore require a specific showing of irreparable harm beyond the ordinary financial consequences of pretrial punishment.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR INQUEST PROCEEDING

Pursuant to Court Rule 3.6.1, the plaintiff respectfully moves for inquest proceeding seeing as the defendant failed to file a reply in an alloted deadline at post #9.

 
ameslap said:

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief in Opposition of the Emergency Injunction

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth requests that the Court reject the Emergency Injunction.

I. Financial Deprivation does not Automatically Establish Irreparable Harm
In [2026] FCR 10, the Court explained that irreparable harm is an injury that cannot be reasonably remedied through a monetary award. Saying "The temporary loss of money is not an irreparable harm."

Similarly in [2023] FCR 77, the Court denied an emergency injunction because the alleged financial harm could be compensated by the Commonwealth after judgement.

II. No Explanation of Why the Hardship is Irreparable
The Plaintiff referred to possible investments, property purchases, or business ventures. They could also possibly do nothing.

The Plaintiff then alleged difficulty paying taxes, purchasing food, and operating businesses. Sure, there may be some need for funds; but the Plaintiff has failed to identify a specific tax amount, upcoming payment deadline, impending property loss, or business obligation demonstrating an injury that could not be reasonably remedied after judgement.

III. An EI Must Preserve the Practical Effects of Section 6(1)
The Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Section 6(1) permits punishment before trial where criminal conduct creates a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment.

Financial punishment ordinarily limits a person’s ability to spend, invest, or operate businesses. If those consequences alone justify an EI returning the funds until trial, Section 6(1) would lose its practical effect. The Court should therefore require a specific showing of irreparable harm beyond the ordinary financial consequences of pretrial punishment.

Thank you,
Ameslap

Click to expand...
The Court finds this brief persuasive. The Emergency Injunction is lifted, and the funds ($147,696.08) may be retrieved again by the Commonwealth under JSA Part II §6(1).
 
Superwoops said:
I am unsure why the Special Prosecutor did not submit in time, but we ask for a 24-hour extension.
Click to expand...
OwnedBlock said:

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR INQUEST PROCEEDING

Pursuant to Court Rule 3.6.1, the plaintiff respectfully moves for inquest proceeding seeing as the defendant failed to file a reply in an alloted deadline at post #9.

Click to expand...
The extension is denied. Should the Commonwealth wish to respond to this action, they shall file a motion to vacate default, which will be granted pursuant to Rule 3.6.3 section (b). Otherwise, we will enter an inquest proceeding now. Discovery will be open for 5 days.
 
Your Honor, since it feels like there's nothing we could reasonably request at this time and no witnesses to call, we'd like to proceed straight to legal brief under 3.6.2(c).
 
OwnedBlock said:
Your Honor, since it feels like there's nothing we could reasonably request at this time and no witnesses to call, we'd like to proceed straight to legal brief under 3.6.2(c).
Click to expand...
The Court will grant the Commonwealth, who is entitled to an automatic granting of a motion to vacate default, the opportunity to submit one, we will not proceed to the legal brief until 24 hours have elapsed from this post.
 

Motion



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

The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Those rights are inalienable and cannot be withheld on the basis of alleged criminality.

Any limitation on those rights must be prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Court has supported the Commonwealth in seizing my entire personal balance under JSA s6(1), and in doing so, has endorsed the proposition that:

— Seizing a citizen’s entire personal balance is a reasonable limitation on their constitutional rights.

— Those rights have not been withheld on the basis of alleged criminality.

— Doing so without laying charges, providing notice of alleged wrongdoing, or establishing a case, is justified in a free and democratic society.

I ask the Court to reconsider, and to ask itself:

— If my actions are so egregious as to warrant the seizure of every cent I own, why has the Commonwealth still not filed a case against me?

— If I pose an ongoing threat to the community, how is it reasonable that the Commonwealth cannot find the time to respond to this case on time for their extended response time?

— How can it be reasonable in a free and democratic society for a citizen to have their entire personal balance seized, without notice, explanation or charge, for more than a week?

— What constitutional authority allows the government to take enforcement action against a citizen without even notifying them of the alleged wrongdoing, let alone without charging them with an offence?

— If more than a week without proceedings is considered reasonable, at what point does the continued seizure of my entire personal balance, without any explanation or case being brought forward, become unreasonable?

This is a question of whether the Commonwealth’s powers can be exercised without accountability, explanation, or any regard for my constitutional rights.

I offer that it is completely unreasonable that a citizen is left with absolutely no money and that no provision is made for basic necessities like food. How is it reasonable that a citizen must submit a budget for their food consumption?

The Court’s ruling risks reinforcing a precedent that allows the Commonwealth to seize everything a citizen owns, leave them without the ability to meet their basic needs, and provide neither an explanation nor a timely opportunity to challenge that action.

The court’s ruling is dangerous and must be addressed to prevent future abuses of JSA6(1).

 
End said:

Motion



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

The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Those rights are inalienable and cannot be withheld on the basis of alleged criminality.

Any limitation on those rights must be prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Court has supported the Commonwealth in seizing my entire personal balance under JSA s6(1), and in doing so, has endorsed the proposition that:

— Seizing a citizen’s entire personal balance is a reasonable limitation on their constitutional rights.

— Those rights have not been withheld on the basis of alleged criminality.

— Doing so without laying charges, providing notice of alleged wrongdoing, or establishing a case, is justified in a free and democratic society.

I ask the Court to reconsider, and to ask itself:

— If my actions are so egregious as to warrant the seizure of every cent I own, why has the Commonwealth still not filed a case against me?

— If I pose an ongoing threat to the community, how is it reasonable that the Commonwealth cannot find the time to respond to this case on time for their extended response time?

— How can it be reasonable in a free and democratic society for a citizen to have their entire personal balance seized, without notice, explanation or charge, for more than a week?

— What constitutional authority allows the government to take enforcement action against a citizen without even notifying them of the alleged wrongdoing, let alone without charging them with an offence?

— If more than a week without proceedings is considered reasonable, at what point does the continued seizure of my entire personal balance, without any explanation or case being brought forward, become unreasonable?

This is a question of whether the Commonwealth’s powers can be exercised without accountability, explanation, or any regard for my constitutional rights.

I offer that it is completely unreasonable that a citizen is left with absolutely no money and that no provision is made for basic necessities like food. How is it reasonable that a citizen must submit a budget for their food consumption?

The Court’s ruling risks reinforcing a precedent that allows the Commonwealth to seize everything a citizen owns, leave them without the ability to meet their basic needs, and provide neither an explanation nor a timely opportunity to challenge that action.

The court’s ruling is dangerous and must be addressed to prevent future abuses of JSA6(1).

Click to expand...
Will you be representing yourself going forward?
 
Your Honor,

I apologize for my lack of posting, late last night I was dealing with a sick kiddo, and misread the due date.

The Commonwealth will continue to defend this case, has evidence to present, and arguments to give.

I request that discovery continue, and that the Commonwealth still be allowed to submit a late Answer, if only so the Court knows which facts are being contested.

Thank you,
Ameslap
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Vacate Default

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth moves to vacate default under Court Rule 3.6.3(b)⁠, which provides that the Commonwealth is entitled to the automatic granting of this motion.

This clarifies the request in my previous post. The Commonwealth intends to defend this action and present its answer and evidence.

We respectfully request that the Court vacate default, discontinue the inquest procedure, and resume ordinary proceedings.


Thank you,
Ameslap

 
Talion77 said:
Will you be representing yourself going forward?
Click to expand...
Your Honor, I apologize for the disorganization, but yes, I do intend to add xEndeavour as my co-counsel in this proceeding. I think his wealth of knowledge will help this case, Court Rules and Procedures is silent on the matter as to what the procedure to add counsel to a case is to my knowledge, but I now realize I should have probably motioned for this sooner.
 
ameslap said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Vacate Default

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth moves to vacate default under Court Rule 3.6.3(b)⁠, which provides that the Commonwealth is entitled to the automatic granting of this motion.

This clarifies the request in my previous post. The Commonwealth intends to defend this action and present its answer and evidence.

We respectfully request that the Court vacate default, discontinue the inquest procedure, and resume ordinary proceedings.


Thank you,
Ameslap

Click to expand...
Granted. We will resume ordinary proceedings. You shall submit your answer within 48 hours.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Answer to Complaint

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that the Commonwealth seized the funds; DENY that the Commonwealth lacks the legal authority to do so.
2. DENY.
3. AFFIRM that there was no reason prior to the seizure, but that the seizure itself did provide a reason.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Court Authorized the Seizure
The Attorney General submitted a written order identifying alleged Embezzlement and seeking $645,050 in restitution. Judge CreeperTD approved the seizure of End's personal and existing bank balances, subject to the conditions listed in his ruling.

2. The Commonwealth Relied on Legal Authority
The Judicial Standards Act, Section 6(1) permits punishment before a trial where a crime creates a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment. The Attorney General relied on the threat to the Olympics.

3. Conversion is Disputed
The Redmont Civil Code Act states that Conversion does not occur when "the defendant reasonably believed they had a right to the property." This is the case here. The Commonwealth believes that the funds held by End were the funds for the Olympics, which, in turn, are property of the Commonwealth and, as such, the Commonwealth has a right to that property.

III. EVIDENCE
D-001 is attached as a document.

D-002.png
D-003.png



Motion


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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth moves to dismiss per the Judicial Standards Act, Part VI, Section 1(5-6).

I. A Judge Approved the Seizure
D-001 through D-003 show that the Attorney General requested judicial authorization, and Judge Creeper TD granted it.

II. This Lawsuit Challenges that Approval
The JSA prohibits a separate lawsuit brought solely to challenge a judicial ruling outside the appeals process.

The Commonwealth believes that asking this Court to undo the judicially authorized seizure is a challenge of that ruling.

For these reason, the Commonwealth requests a dismissal of this case.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 

Attachments

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