Novakerbal
Citizen
Supporter
Justice Department
Health Department
Change Maker
Statesman
NovaKerbal
State Prosecutor
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2025
- Messages
- 103
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff
v.
Town of Oakridge
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. Town of Oakridge (Defendant)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Plaintiff)
3. Yeet_Boy (Mayor)
II. FACTS
1. On November 17th, 2025, Talion77(in their capacity as Oakridge Head of Residence) created a DCT ticket to request the eviction of or-brewery (P-001).
2. During the aforementioned ticket, Yeet_Boy (in their capacity as Mayor) discouraged the creation of similar tickets, and claimed to have their own methods of transferring plots that bypassed the DCT (P-002)(P-003).
3. Search warrants actioned by the Commonwealth revealed that staff had transferred the plot from the previous owner(Bardiya_King) to Yeet_Boy upon the request of the latter. (P-004), (P-005), (P-006), (P-007), (P-008).
4. ElysiaCrynn asked Yeet_Boy to verify the legality of the transfer they were requesting, which Yeet_Boy subsequently claimed to be legitimate (P-008).
5. At the time of the actions undertaken by Yeet_Boy, Oakridge derived all jurisdiction from Executive Order 21/25 - Towns' Rights.
6. §4 of Executive Order 21/25 - Towns' Rights states: "Evictions and transfers of property within Town limits (Facilitated by Town government, actioned by the DCT);".
7. The Preamble of the Oakridge Town Constitution lists eviction jurisdiction in the Town as "Department of Construction and Transportation to action evictions".
8. Article II, § (e)(4) of the Oakridge Town Constitution states that the Office of Residence is responsible for "Management of evicted plot auctions within Oakridge".
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Yeet_Boy, acting in their official capacity as Mayor of Oakridge violated both the Oakridge Town Constitution and Executive Order 21/25 - Towns' Rights, by directly petitioning staff to transfer the plot to him, rather than utilizing lawful and established DCT mechanisms. Firstly, the conduct unequivocally violated Executive Order 21/25 as it clearly states that the DCT is responsible for actioning the eviction of town plots, and no other entities. The Oakridge Town Constitution corroborates this as it also establishes the DCT as having jurisdiction over actioning evictions. It is abundantly clear that the alleged actions were a violation of the law. The Mayor of Oakridge took an action that violates both federal Executive Order and local Statute, the illegality of such an action is clear.
- 1.A- Executive Order 21/25 - Towns' Rights has since been repealed, however the amendment of the Constitution under The Town Rights Expansion Act maintains the jurisdiction of actioning evictions solely under the Federal Government, and the DCT. Part V 32(3) of the Constitution grants towns explicit jurisdiction over "land use, zoning, building standards, and property administration;". This clause is equivalent with a prior clause present in Executive Order 21/25 - Towns' Rights which states: "Land use, zoning, plot pricing, building regulations, and building standards;". Notably however, Executive Order 21/25 - Towns' Rights explicitly carved out the handling of evictions under a separate section, specifically clarifying that evictions will be facilitated by the Town government and actioned by the DCT. As no such Constitutional clause exists that explicitly delegates the facilitation or actioning of any evictions to any Town jurisdiction, it remains within the jurisdiction of the DCT. Therefore a permanent injunction is necessary to prevent any future violations of the DCT's jurisdiction over actioning evictions, as they are the sole entity granted such jurisdiction.
2. The DCT suffered injury when its authority was illegally undermined by a local Government official. Additionally, the Executive as a whole suffered injury by having a lawful Executive Order undermined in its authority. The Supreme Court in [2025] FCR 117 - Appeal maintained that “It is indeed true that individuals do not need to prove they have been specifically harmed in some discrete, tangible manner—but they still must prove some injury occurred. It should be noted that the bar for this is extremely low.”. The Commonwealth has the constitutional right and duty to enforce the law as written by the legislature. When its authority is undermined, this is not just a matter of preference or procedure – it is an abridgement of the legal rights of the federal government. By undermining both the authority of the DCT and the execution of a lawfully binding Executive Order, the alleged actions inflicted clear injury to the Commonwealth.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Issue a declaratory judgement that the actions undertaken by the Mayor of Oakridge, Yeet_Boy, were illegal.
2. Issue a permanent injunction preventing all current and future Mayors of Oakridge and other members of the Oakridge Town Council from actioning the eviction of plots within their jurisdiction through methods inconsistent with the Constitution of Redmont or the Oakridge town Constitution.
Evidence List:
See attached PDF P-004 (2)
See attached PDF P-005
Witness List:
1. Talion77 (Former Oakridge Head of Residence)
2. Staff
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 1st day of March, 2026