Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. kisskissy

[Matthew100x]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

kisskissy
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​

The Commonwealth of Redmont, through the Department of Education (“DOE”) and an investigation conducted by the Department of Justice and its investigative authorities, became aware of an ongoing compromise of DOE-administered examinations. The investigation uncovered online videos and related materials displaying and disseminating answers to DOE-administered examinations. The Commonwealth’s evidence connects Defendant kisskissy to the publication and dissemination of those materials and further shows that the Defendant offered or sold exam answers to others.

The investigation has presently identified 123 compromised exam questions and corresponding answers, spanning legal examinations and several additional DOE-administered examinations. Some of the compromised material has remained publicly available for at least approximately one month. Its continued availability has substantially impaired the DOE’s ability to use and enjoy its controlled examination materials, has required or will require the review and replacement of compromised questions, and continues to facilitate cheating so long as the material remains available.

The Commonwealth therefore brings this action for Nuisance and Breach of Academic Integrity, seeking the statutory civil penalties and an order requiring the Defendant to abate the continuing nuisance by removing and ceasing dissemination of the compromised examination materials.

I. PARTIES​

1. Plaintiff, the Commonwealth of Redmont, is the sovereign government of Redmont and acts in this matter through its appropriate Executive departments, including the Department of Education and Department of Justice.
2. Defendant, kisskissy, is the person whom the Commonwealth alleges published, disseminated, and/or sold answers to DOE-administered examinations.

II. FACTS​

1. The Department of Education administers examinations within the Commonwealth of Redmont. (see Part VII, §§ 1(a)-(b), 2(a)-(d), Act of Congress - Bar Association of Redmont Act).
2. With respect to legal examinations specifically, the DOE possesses statutory authority to develop, maintain, and update the examinations, establish examination procedures and requirements, and set passing criteria. The DOE is additionally required to ensure examination security and maintain examination records. (see Id.)
3. Through its examination records and administration, the DOE became aware of suspicious patterns involving multiple persons completing and passing legal examinations within unusually short periods of time and in close temporal proximity to one another.
4. Those circumstances prompted further investigation by the Commonwealth.
5. The Department of Justice and its investigative authorities thereafter investigated the suspected compromise of DOE-administered examinations.
6. The investigation identified an online video channel containing videos that disclosed questions and corresponding answers from DOE-administered examinations. (See P-001, which we will disseminate in closed court).
7. The Commonwealth will not identify the channel or reproduce the compromised examination content in this public filing because doing so would further disseminate the material that this action seeks to contain and abate.
8. The Commonwealth possesses evidence connecting Defendant kisskissy to the publication and dissemination of those videos. The Commonwealth intends to submit evidence revealing the channel, its contents, and the evidence connecting the Defendant to it through an appropriate closed-court procedure so that the evidence itself does not further compromise DOE examinations.
9. The investigation further produced evidence that the Defendant gave, offered, and/or sold DOE-administered examination answers to other persons.
10. The videos and related materials were accessible to other persons and were used or available to be used for the purpose of obtaining answers before completing DOE-administered examinations.
11. Some of the compromised material has remained available for at least approximately one month, making the interference continuing rather than isolated or momentary.
12. Further review established that the compromise was not limited to legal examinations. The compromised materials also included answers associated with the Jeweller, Hunter, Driver’s License, Miner, and Fisher examinations, among other examination material identified in the Commonwealth’s evidence.
13. The Commonwealth has presently identified 123 individual exam questions and corresponding answers that were compromised and disseminated through the Defendant’s conduct.
14. Because those answers were made available indiscriminately to prospective examinees, the affected questions can no longer reliably perform their intended function as secure examination questions without review, alteration, replacement, or other remedial action by the DOE.
15. The Defendant had no authorization or consent from the Commonwealth or the DOE to publish, distribute, give, or sell the answers.
16. The continued publication of the compromised examination materials impairs the Commonwealth’s continuing use of its examination bank, undermines examination security, and imposes upon the DOE the need to identify, review, modify, and replace compromised material.
17. To the extent evidence originating outside Redmont is introduced, the Commonwealth offers that evidence as corroboration of the Defendant’s identity, authorship, dissemination, or related Redmont-directed conduct. The Commonwealth does not rely upon the mere existence of conduct outside Redmont as a separate cause of action.
18. Certain administrative penalties arising from the examination-compromise investigation may already have been assessed against the Defendant. To the extent an identical act has already resulted in an administrative assessment, the Commonwealth seeks enforcement or confirmation of the outstanding assessment rather than a duplicative second assessment for the same act.
19. The Commonwealth has suffered a concrete injury because examination materials under DOE administration and control have been compromised, their continued secure use has been impaired, and at least 123 questions must now be reviewed and potentially changed. The alleged injury is directly attributable to the Defendant’s dissemination of those materials, the conduct is alleged to violate the Redmont Civil Code Act, and that Act expressly supplies civil penalties and abatement relief. The Commonwealth therefore satisfies the requirements of standing. (see Rule 2.1,Information - Court Rules and Procedures ).
20. One Civil Penalty Unit is presently equivalent to $120. (see Part II, § 8(3), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act ).
21. Plaintiff alleges 123 separately disseminated examination answers. At the statutory maximum of 20 Civil Penalty Units for each proven Breach of Academic Integrity violation, Count II places up to 2,460 Civil Penalty Units, or $295,200, in controversy before consideration of Count I.
22. The Federal Court possesses original jurisdiction over major civil cases whose value exceeds $120,000. (see Part II, § 18(1)(c), Government - Constitution).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

COUNT I — NUISANCE​

1. Nuisance is an intentional or negligent property violation for which the Civil Code authorizes up to 50 Civil Penalty Units and an order to abate the nuisance. A violation occurs where a person causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of property and that interference would be offensive to a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position. The statute excludes interference to which the plaintiff consented or which results from the ordinary and reasonable use of the defendant’s own property. (see Part VII, § 6(a)–(d), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act ).
2. The Civil Code places Nuisance within its Property Torts Part, which protects the possession, use, and enjoyment of property and addresses unlawful interference with property rights. (see Part VII, introductory provision, Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).
3. The Commonwealth, through the DOE, develops, maintains, administers, controls, and uses its examination materials. With respect to legal examinations, statute expressly assigns the DOE responsibility for developing and maintaining the examinations and for ensuring their security. (see Part VII, §§ 1(1)(a), 2(2)(a), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).
4. The Defendant substantially interfered with the Commonwealth’s use and enjoyment of those controlled examination materials by publishing and disseminating their answers to persons who could access those answers before taking the examinations.
5. That interference is substantial because at least 123 examination questions and answers have been compromised, requiring the DOE to review, modify, replace, or otherwise remediate the affected examination materials before they may again reliably function as secure assessments.
6. The interference is continuing because the Defendant’s videos and associated materials have remained available over an extended period and remain capable of compromising examinations for so long as they continue to be accessible.
7. The interference is unreasonable. A reasonable person in the Commonwealth’s position, charged with administering examinations and maintaining examination security, would find the unauthorized public dissemination and sale of confidential examination answers offensive and incompatible with the continued secure use of those materials.
8. The Commonwealth and DOE did not consent to the Defendant’s publication or dissemination of the examination answers.
9. The interference did not arise from the ordinary and reasonable use of the Defendant’s own property. Publishing, distributing, or selling another entity’s controlled examination answers for use by prospective examinees is not an ordinary or reasonable use sufficient to invoke § 6(d).
10. Accordingly, Defendant committed Nuisance in violation of Part VII, § 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

COUNT II — BREACH OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY​

1. Breach of Academic Integrity is an administrative violation carrying a remedy of up to 20 Civil Penalty Units where a person gives or sells answers to DOE-administered exam questions, or purchases or receives cheated answers and uses them on a DOE-administered examination. (see Part XIII, § 8(a)–(b), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).
2. The Commonwealth alleges that the Defendant gave answers to DOE-administered exam questions by recording, publishing, and making videos and related materials containing those answers available to other persons.
3. The Commonwealth further alleges that the Defendant sold or offered to sell DOE-administered examination answers to other persons, or otherwise disseminated this information by giving it away for free.
4. The Commonwealth’s present investigation has identified 123 individual examination questions whose corresponding answers were disclosed through the scheme.
5. Plaintiff alleges that each independently disclosed answer constitutes a discrete act of giving an answer to a DOE-administered exam question and therefore pleads 123 violations of Breach of Academic Integrity under Part XIII, § 8(a).
6. In the alternative, should the Court determine that the statutory unit of violation is a discrete publication, transfer, sale, or dissemination event rather than each individual answer disclosed, Plaintiff requests a finding of liability for each separate dissemination or sale established by the evidence.
7. Administrative violations may be directly enforced only by a government entity and are subject to a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden. The Commonwealth is the governmental enforcing party in this action. (see Part II, § 9(5), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).
8. The Civil Code further defines an administrative violation as a regulatory breach subject to immediate government enforcement without a formal trial and provides that such enforcement may subsequently be contested before a judicial officer. (see Part II, § 7(5), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).
9. Accordingly, for any violation already administratively assessed against the Defendant based upon the same act, the Commonwealth requests judicial confirmation and enforcement of the outstanding assessment rather than the imposition of a duplicative assessment. For additional violations proven in this action that have not previously been assessed, the Commonwealth requests the penalty authorized by Part XIII, § 8.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. A finding of liability for Nuisance under Part VII, § 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. The full 50 Civil Penalty Units authorized for the Nuisance violation, in light of the duration, scope, intentional nature, and continuing consequences of the Defendant’s conduct. In selecting a civil penalty, the Court may consider the seriousness of the violation, the violator’s intent and conduct, aggravating circumstances, compliance history, community protection, and deterrence
3. An order abating the nuisance, requiring Defendant kisskissy, within a period fixed by the Court, to:
   • remove all videos, posts, documents, files, or other materials within the Defendant’s possession or control that reveal answers to DOE-administered examinations;
   • cease publishing, republishing, distributing, giving, or selling the compromised examination answers;
   • take reasonable steps available to the Defendant to remove copies uploaded through accounts or channels controlled by the Defendant; and
   • certify compliance with the Court’s abatement order under potential sanction of contempt of court.
4. A finding of liability for each Breach of Academic Integrity violation proven by clear and convincing evidence under Part XIII, § 8(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
5. A finding, on Plaintiff’s principal theory, that the 123 independently disclosed examination answers constitute 123 violations, and an award or enforcement of up to 20 Civil Penalty Units per proven violation, subject to appropriate credit or treatment for any identical violation already administratively assessed.
6. In the alternative, should the Court reject a per-answer unit of violation, the maximum authorized penalty for each discrete publication, dissemination, transfer, or sale that the Court determines constitutes a separate violation under Part XIII, § 8(a).
7. For any Breach of Academic Integrity violations already administratively assessed but remaining unpaid, judicial confirmation and enforcement of those outstanding assessments, rather than duplicative penalties for the identical conduct.
8. Leave to submit evidence that would reveal currently compromised examination questions, answers, channel identifiers, or other security-sensitive information through an appropriate closed-court procedure, so that litigating this action does not itself further disseminate the compromised material.
9. Such further orders as are necessary to effectuate and enforce the statutory abatement of the nuisance.

The Commonwealth reserves the ability to introduce additional material during discovery consistent with Court Rule 4.2, which requires material relied upon in legal argument to have been included in the complaint, an amendment, or a discovery submission. (see Rule 4.2, Information - Court Rules and Procedures).

DATED: This 30th day of August, 2026.

Motion

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

Commonwealth of Redmont,
Plaintiff

v.

kisskissy
Defendant

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully moves this Court for an Emergency Injunction preserving assets belonging to Defendant kisskissy up to the amount of $295,200, and in support thereof states as follows:

I. RELIEF REQUESTED​

1. The Commonwealth requests an immediate Emergency Injunction restraining Defendant kisskissy from transferring, withdrawing, gifting, selling, concealing, encumbering, dissipating, or otherwise disposing of money or other readily transferable assets to the extent necessary to preserve $295,200 pending resolution or satisfaction of the Commonwealth's administrative assessment for Breach of Academic Integrity.
2. The Commonwealth further requests that the Department of Homeland Security, or other appropriate governmental authority designated by the Court, be authorized and directed to identify and secure Defendant's funds and liquid assets, including funds held through Redmont financial institutions, only until assets totaling $295,200 have been preserved.
3. The Commonwealth does not request an unlimited freeze of Defendant's property. Any money or property exceeding the $295,200 preservation amount should remain unrestricted.
4. If Defendant possesses less than $295,200 in money and readily transferable assets, the Commonwealth requests preservation of all available assets up to their total value.
5. In the alternative, should the Court determine that direct preservation through DHS is unnecessarily restrictive, the Commonwealth requests that Defendant be required to place or maintain assets totaling $295,200 in a secured account, bond, or equivalent Court-approved mechanism for the duration of this proceeding.

II. AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF​

1. The Judicial Standards Act expressly authorizes a Court to issue an injunction compelling a litigant to do, or refrain from doing, an act. It further authorizes an Emergency Injunction before or during a proceeding upon the application of a litigant or prospective litigant. (see Part V, § 1(1)–(2)(b), Judicial Standards Act).
2. The underlying civil proceeding has already been commenced through the Commonwealth's Complaint against Defendant. The statutory rule governing expiration of an Emergency Injunction where no proceeding has been commenced therefore presents no obstacle here. (see Part V, § 1(3), Judicial Standards Act).
3. The Judicial Standards Act additionally authorizes the Courts to issue writs necessary in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. To the extent implementation of this preservation order requires governmental assistance beyond an injunction directed personally against Defendant, the Commonwealth alternatively requests relief under that authority. (see Part V, § 2(1), Judicial Standards Act).

III. THE COMMONWEALTH MAY IMMEDIATELY ENFORCE BREACH OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY​

1. Breach of Academic Integrity is expressly classified as an Administrative Violation under the Redmont Civil Code Act. It carries a remedy of up to 20 Civil Penalty Units where a person gives or sells answers to DOE-administered examination questions. (see Part XIII, § 8(a), Redmont Civil Code Act).
2. The Civil Code defines an Administrative Violation as a regulatory breach enforced by a government entity through an immediate penalty, without the need for a formal trial, which may subsequently be contested before a judicial officer. (see Part II, § 7(5), Redmont Civil Code Act).
3. Administrative Violations may only be directly enforced by a government entity and require proof by clear and convincing evidence. (see Part II, § 9(5), Redmont Civil Code Act).
4. The Commonwealth is the governmental enforcement entity in this matter.
5. Based upon the investigation described in the Complaint and the evidence possessed by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has identified 123 DOE-administered examination questions and corresponding answers that Defendant gave, distributed, published, and/or sold.
6. The Commonwealth therefore alleges 123 separate violations of Breach of Academic Integrity and, contemporaneously with this proceeding, has administratively assessed the maximum authorized penalty of 20 Civil Penalty Units per violation, subject to Defendant's statutory right to contest that enforcement before a judicial officer.
7. One Civil Penalty Unit is presently equal to $120. (see Part II, § 8(1)–(3), Redmont Civil Code Act).
8. The administrative assessment is therefore calculated as follows: 123 violations × (20 Civil Penalty Units × $120) = $295,200.
9. Accordingly, the $295,200 that the Commonwealth seeks to preserve is not an estimate of speculative future consequential damages, punitive damages, legal fees, or some multiplier potentially awarded after trial. It represents the amount of the Commonwealth's presently asserted administrative assessment arising directly from the Breach of Academic Integrity violations.

IV. AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE DISSIPATION OF ASSETS​

1. The purpose of an Emergency Injunction in Redmont is preventative: it exists to prevent harm before final adjudication.
2. The Supreme Court has explained that Emergency Injunctions exist to prevent irreparable harm and that interim relief must be directed toward preventing future harm rather than merely compensating for past harm. (see Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, Post #4).
3. Here, the harm sought to be prevented is not merely the underlying academic-integrity violation. That conduct has already occurred and is addressed through the administrative penalties.
4. The distinct and prospective harm is that Defendant may spend, transfer, conceal, distribute, or otherwise dissipate the assets available to satisfy those penalties while this litigation and any judicial contest of the administrative enforcement remain pending.
5. The Commonwealth's assessment totals $295,200, a substantial sum.
6. The Commonwealth further understands that Defendant does not presently possess sufficient immediately accessible funds to satisfy the entire assessment.
7. That makes preservation especially important. Where the Defendant's assets are already insufficient to satisfy the administrative obligation, continued spending or transfer of the remaining assets would materially diminish the Commonwealth's ability to enforce the penalty.
8. Money that is transferred, gifted, spent, concealed through entities, deposited into other accounts, converted into transferable property, or otherwise placed beyond the Defendant's immediate ownership may require separate investigations or proceedings to recover.
9. An order entered after those assets have disappeared would not meaningfully preserve the Commonwealth's enforcement power. The purpose of the Emergency Injunction is therefore to preserve the existing pool of assets while the Defendant retains the ability to contest the administrative assessment.

V. REDMONT PRECEDENT SUPPORTS A CAPPED ASSET-PRESERVATION ORDER​

1. Redmont courts have previously employed Emergency Injunctions to prevent the dissipation of assets necessary to satisfy the subject matter of pending litigation.
2. In ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ et al. [2026] FCR 47, the Federal Court granted an Emergency Injunction with modification and directed DHS to seize and secure assets up to the amount the Court found appropriate to preserve pending adjudication. The Court rejected a substantially larger requested freeze and instead limited the restraint to the amount sufficiently connected to the underlying claim. (see ko531 v. Incarnation__ & Jakkuwu_ et al. [2026] FCR 47, Post #7).
3. The Commonwealth does not ask the Court to freeze millions of dollars in assets merely because Defendant possesses them, nor does the Commonwealth ask the Court to restrain property above the administrative assessment.
4. The Federal Court's decision in MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14 further demonstrates the importance of tailoring an asset freeze to the proper parties and amount. There, the Federal Court vacated an Emergency Injunction insofar as it froze millions of dollars belonging to a person who was not a party to the underlying litigation, while expressly restoring the injunction as applied to the named defendants. (see MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14, Court Order).
5. The concerns identified in MasterCaelen are avoided here.
   1. First, kisskissy is the named Defendant in this proceeding.
   2. Second, the Commonwealth seeks to restrain only assets in which Defendant possesses an ownership interest.
   3. Third, the requested restraint is expressly capped at the amount of the administrative assessment: $295,200.
   4. Fourth, Defendant retains the ability to appear before this Court, contest the administrative assessment, move to reconsider the injunction, and otherwise exercise the procedural rights afforded to a named litigant.

VI. THE BALANCE OF HARM FAVORS PRESERVATION​

1. The requested injunction is narrowly tailored.
2. If the injunction is granted, Defendant's assets are preserved only up to $295,200. Assets exceeding that amount remain available for Defendant's use.
3. If Defendant ultimately succeeds in contesting some or all of the administrative violations, the preserved assets can simply be released to the extent the assessment is reduced.
4. Conversely, if no injunction is entered and Defendant dissipates the assets during litigation, a later decision sustaining the Commonwealth's assessment may be substantially more difficult or impossible to enforce against the presently available property.
5. The potential harm caused by the injunction is therefore temporary restriction of a defined amount of Defendant's assets.
6. The potential harm caused by denying the injunction is permanent dissipation of the assets necessary to satisfy an immediately enforceable governmental penalty.
7. The latter harm is greater.

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 30th day of August, 2026.