Lawsuit: Pending amah853 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR

[amah853]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This action concerns a Murder charge imposed against the Plaintiff after the death of BlessedBlankets. The Plaintiff alleges that BlessedBlankets had enabled the legally relevant consent state before the killing and that staff records confirmed that fact while the Plaintiff remained detained.

The Plaintiff seeks review of the resulting summary-offense conviction, the compensation and reimbursement provided by law if that offence is found unproven, and relief for any period of detention that continued after DHS no longer possessed reasonable grounds to believe the detention lawful.

I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff is amah853, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Defendant is the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), an executive department of the Commonwealth responsible for law enforcement and enforcement of criminal penalties.

II. FACTS

1. On 13 September 2026, at approximately 21:04:03 Central Time, DHS Police Officer StarKlower arrested the Plaintiff and charged him with one count of Murder arising from the death of BlessedBlankets.
2. StarKlower placed the Plaintiff in handcuffs and the Plaintiff remained in DHS custody.
3. The Plaintiff’s belongings were logged and temporarily removed as part of the arrest.
4. At approximately 21:04:42, the Plaintiff was fined $420 for Murder.
5. Prior to the killing, BlessedBlankets used the server’s operative /consent command for the purpose of enabling consent to be killed.
6. At the relevant time, /consent was the operative server command used to toggle the same player-consent state referred to in applicable law as the police-consent state.
7. During the Plaintiff’s detention, difficulties arose concerning his movement while handcuffed.
8. At approximately 21:05:42–21:05:44, the Plaintiff’s client repeatedly reported that he could not teleport because he was handcuffed.
9. The same condition continued at approximately 21:06:35–21:06:37, when numerous further teleport attempts were prevented because the Plaintiff remained restrained.
10. These facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff remained continuously restrained and subject to DHS custody during the relevant period.
11. During the detention, the Plaintiff sought assistance from staff member Sara-Berry Iris, also known as StrawberrySara (“Sara”), concerning whether BlessedBlankets had properly enabled consent.
12. StarKlower was present for and actively participated in the same local-chat discussion while the consent issue was being investigated.
13. At approximately 21:08:50, StarKlower advised those present to use /hs replay, directly participating in the discussion concerning the underlying Murder charge and available records.
14. Sara then searched records relating to BlessedBlankets’ use of the consent command.
15. At approximately 21:09:45, Sara stated that she could see a recorded “consent on.”
16. At approximately 21:10:01, Sara further stated that BlessedBlankets had executed the command three times in a row.
17. The Plaintiff asked whether the recorded sequence had instead been “on - off - on.”
18. At approximately 21:10:19, Sara expressly corrected that suggestion and stated that the sequence recorded was “on on on.”
19. Sara further questioned why the Plaintiff had received charges.
20. Following Sara’s announcements concerning the consent records, the Plaintiff discussed removal of the Murder charge in the same local-chat conversation.
21. StarKlower remained present and continued participating in that conversation.
22. At approximately 21:11:06, following that discussion, StarKlower stated that “technically any dhs can do it but yeah open a ticket.”
23. The Plaintiff did not open a DHS ticket during the detention.
24. However, StarKlower had independently participated in the conversation concerning the consent evidence before the records were searched and continued participating after the results were announced.
25. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that StarKlower acquired actual notice of the evidence concerning BlessedBlankets’ consent independently of any DHS ticket.
26. The Plaintiff remained detained after that point.
27. The Plaintiff was released exactly 15 minutes after the arrest, at approximately 21:19:03 Central Time.
28. Approximately nine minutes and eighteen seconds elapsed between Sara’s first confirmation of a recorded consent on at approximately 21:09:45 and the Plaintiff’s release.
29. Approximately eight minutes and forty-four seconds elapsed between Sara’s express confirmation that the recorded sequence was “on on on” at approximately 21:10:19 and the Plaintiff’s release.
30. The legality of the continued detention therefore turns, in material part, on what StarKlower knew, when they knew it, and what reasonable factual or legal basis remained for continuing the detention thereafter.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I - MURDER OFFENCE NOT SUPPORTED BY AN UNLAWFUL KILLING

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Criminal Code Act classifies Murder as a summary offence and provides that a person commits Murder where that person “unlawfully kills another player.”
3. The Criminal Code Act further expressly provides that players retain the right to appeal summary-offense convictions in court and requires DHS to refund a fine in full where such a conviction is overturned.
4. The Murder Offences Clarification Act, which amended the Criminal Terminology Act, provides that for applicable Murder offences an “unlawful killing” requires, among other things, that the killed player did not have the applicable police-consent state enabled at the time of death.
5. That law further provides that a killing falling outside the statutory definition of an unlawful killing is a lawful killing and does not constitute an offence under the Criminal Code Act.
6. Although the legislation refers to the relevant state using the terminology /police consent, the Plaintiff alleges that the operative server command at the relevant time was /consent and that it controlled the same consent state.
7. During the Plaintiff’s detention, Sara searched the relevant records and found a recorded consent on.
8. Sara further confirmed that BlessedBlankets had executed the relevant command three consecutive times and expressly clarified that the recorded sequence was “on on on.”
9. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that BlessedBlankets had enabled the legally relevant consent state before the killing.
10. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the killing did not satisfy the statutory requirement necessary to constitute an unlawful killing for the charged Murder offence.

A. THE DHS PLUGIN DOES NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. The Plaintiff acknowledges the Owner Veto concerning evidence produced through the Homeland Security plugin.
2. In Muggy21 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 86, the Court considered an appeal from a Murder charge generated through the DHS plugin.
3. The Court held in that matter that the Criminal Code’s later statutory framework permits judicial appeals from summary convictions, including Murder convictions, notwithstanding the earlier Owner Veto.
4. The Court further treated the DHS plugin as prima facie evidence of criminal conduct rather than conclusive evidence and held that its result could be overcome by credible evidence.
5. The subsequently updated Owner Veto states that the Homeland Security plugin is presumptively correct as evidence until proven otherwise by evidence other than witness testimony alone.
6. The updated Owner Veto further expressly stated that it did not protect DHS in Muggy21 because evidence beyond witness testimony had been provided.
7. The Plaintiff therefore does not contend that the plugin output should simply be disregarded.
8. Instead, the Plaintiff intends to rely upon documentary and server-derived evidence, including the records reviewed by Sara concerning BlessedBlankets’ activation of consent, together with testimony explaining and authenticating those records.
9. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the presumption afforded to the DHS plugin is rebuttable and does not bar this Court from reviewing or overturning the Murder offence where sufficient contrary evidence is established.

B. STATUTORY COMPENSATION

1. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff was charged with and punished for Murder, detained for exactly 15 minutes, and fined $420.
2. Part I, Section 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Act provides that where an individual is found not guilty after punishment has already been imposed, that individual shall receive $50 for each minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, together with reimbursement of any fine paid for those offences.
3. If the Murder offence is found unproven and the Plaintiff is accordingly found not guilty of that offence, the Plaintiff is entitled to $750 for the 15 minutes actually spent detained, together with reimbursement of the $420 Murder fine, totaling $1,170 in statutory compensation and reimbursement.
4. The Plaintiff therefore seeks a finding that the Murder offence was unproven and that the Plaintiff is not guilty of that offence, together with correction or removal of the resulting criminal record as appropriate and the compensation required by Part I, Section 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Act.

COUNT II - WRONGFUL ARREST OR DETENTION

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. Part XI, Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act establishes Wrongful Arrest or Detention where a law-enforcement officer arrests or detains a plaintiff without lawful authority or where a government officer detains a plaintiff beyond a period authorized by law.
3. The same provision provides that a violation does not occur where the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the arrest or detention was lawful.
4. The Plaintiff does not ask the Court to infer that StarKlower necessarily acted wrongfully at the precise moment of arrest merely because the underlying charge may ultimately be overturned.
5. The Plaintiff acknowledges that StarKlower may initially have possessed reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest was lawful.
6. The Plaintiff instead alleges, in the alternative, that any reasonable grounds supporting the continued detention ceased once StarKlower became aware of reliable staff verification establishing that BlessedBlankets had enabled the legally relevant consent state.
7. Before the relevant records were searched, StarKlower was already participating in the discussion concerning the validity of the Murder charge and directed those present toward replay information.
8. Sara then publicly stated in the same local-chat conversation that she had located a consent on, that BlessedBlankets had executed the command three times consecutively, and that the sequence was “on on on.”
9. Following those announcements, the Plaintiff discussed removal of the Murder charge in the same local-chat conversation.
10. StarKlower then continued participating in that discussion and stated that “technically any dhs can do it but yeah open a ticket.”
11. The Plaintiff alleges that this sequence provides evidence from which the Court may find that StarKlower actually saw, understood, or otherwise became aware of Sara’s findings concerning BlessedBlankets’ consent.
12. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff remained detained until approximately 21:19:03 Central Time.
13. The Plaintiff alleges that once the arresting officer acquired actual knowledge of facts removing the factual basis necessary for the charged offence, reasonable grounds for continuing that detention no longer existed.
14. The Plaintiff further alleges that the absence of a separately opened DHS ticket does not itself preserve reasonable grounds where the arresting officer independently received the relevant information through another source.
15. An internal or administrative procedure requiring a DHS ticket may be relevant to how a disputed charge is ordinarily reviewed, but such a procedure does not itself establish reasonable grounds to continue detention where the responsible officer has independently acquired reliable information demonstrating that an essential element of the charged offence is absent.
16. Whether StarKlower actually received and understood that information, the precise time at which they did so, and what factual, legal, or procedural basis they relied upon for continuing the detention are material factual questions appropriate for discovery and testimony.
17. Recent litigation concerning this statutory tort has treated the validity of the underlying conviction and the existence of reasonable grounds for an arrest or continued detention as distinct inquiries. See waygooda v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] FCR 60.
18. If the Court determines that the Plaintiff remained detained after StarKlower no longer possessed reasonable grounds to believe the detention lawful, the Plaintiff requests a finding that such period constituted Wrongful Arrest or Detention under Part XI, Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Find the Murder offence arising from the death of BlessedBlankets unproven and find the Plaintiff not guilty of that offence;
2. Overturn the Plaintiff’s summary-offense conviction for Murder;
3. Order DHS to correct or remove the resulting Murder criminal record as necessary to accurately reflect the Court’s ruling;
4. Pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Act, order reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s $420 Murder fine;
5. Pursuant to Part I, Section 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Act, award the Plaintiff $750, representing $50 for each of the 15 minutes actually spent imprisoned for the Murder offence found unproven;
6. Find that any portion of the Plaintiff’s continued detention occurring after DHS ceased to possess reasonable grounds to believe the detention lawful constituted Wrongful Arrest or Detention under Part XI, Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Act;
7. Grant the remedy of expungement prescribed for Wrongful Arrest or Detention;
8. If the Court establishes a civil violation under Count II but determines that the Plaintiff is not entitled to additional substantial damages for that violation, award nominal damages pursuant to Part III, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, in an amount the Court considers appropriate and without permitting duplicative recovery;
9. Permit appropriate discovery concerning StarKlower’s knowledge, applicable DHS procedures, and the factual or legal basis relied upon for continuing the Plaintiff’s detention; and
10. Grant such other lawful and equitable relief as the Court determines appropriate.

V. EVIDENCE

Pursuant to the Court Rules and Procedures, including Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff identifies the following evidence:

P-001 - Local Logs from amah853’s Client from 13 September 2026 (Central Time)

(Click here)

The Plaintiff relies upon P-001 for the relevant timeline, including the detention, the consent discussion, Sara’s statements concerning the consent records, StarKlower’s participation in the discussion, and the Plaintiff’s release.

P-002 - Staff Ticket concerning BlessedBlankets’ consent command and the operation of the relevant consent state

Spoiler: Transcript

The Plaintiff relies upon P-002 as documentary evidence concerning BlessedBlankets’ execution of the consent command and the operation of the relevant consent state.

VI. WITNESSES

The Plaintiff presently identifies the following witnesses.

The Plaintiff further intends, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Court Rules and Procedures, to formally announce all witnesses during discovery as required by that Rule.

1. StarKlower

StarKlower is a material witness because they:

• arrested and handcuffed the Plaintiff;
• managed the Plaintiff’s custody;
• participated in the discussion concerning the validity of the Murder charge;
• participated immediately before staff searched the relevant consent records;
• continued participating after those findings were announced;
• discussed DHS’s ability to remove the charge; and
• possess direct knowledge concerning what they knew and why the Plaintiff remained detained.

2. Sara-Berry Iris / StrawberrySara

Sara is a material witness because she:

• personally searched the relevant records;
• located the recorded consent on;
• confirmed that BlessedBlankets had executed the command three times;
• expressly clarified that the recorded sequence was “on on on”;
• can testify concerning the relationship between the operative /consent command and the relevant player consent state;
• can identify or authenticate the records she reviewed;
• interacted with the Plaintiff and StarKlower during the detention; and
• possesses direct knowledge concerning what was announced in StarKlower’s presence.

3. BlessedBlankets

BlessedBlankets is a material witness because he:

• was the player whose death formed the basis of the Murder charge;
• personally executed the operative consent command; and
• possesses firsthand knowledge of his consent to the killing.

4. amah853

The Plaintiff may testify concerning:

• the circumstances preceding BlessedBlankets’ death;
• the arrest and handcuffing;
• the duration and nature of the detention;
• the discussion with Sara and StarKlower;
• Sara’s investigation of the consent records; and
• the Plaintiff’s release exactly fifteen minutes after arrest.

VII. ANTICIPATED DISCOVERY

1. Pursuant to Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff anticipates seeking relevant documents, messages, screenshots, DHS records, policies, and other responsive materials within the Defendant’s possession or control concerning:

• StarKlower’s knowledge of BlessedBlankets’ consent;
• DHS’s factual and legal basis for continuing the Plaintiff’s detention;
• DHS procedures applicable when evidence indicates that a summary charge may have been imposed incorrectly;
• records available to DHS concerning the Plaintiff’s detention; and
• records concerning the relevant consent evidence.

1. To the extent server-side or /hs records are not available from the Defendant, the Plaintiff reserves the right to establish the relevant facts through properly submitted documentary evidence, witness testimony, or any other procedure authorized by the Court.
2. The Plaintiff further reserves the right under Rule 4.8 to submit relevant interrogatories during discovery.

---

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 September 2026

Respectfully submitted,

amah853

Plaintiff, Pro Se