Lawsuit: Pending Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 65

Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Senator
Supporter
Change Maker Legal Eagle Statesman Presidential Commendation
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Senator
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
2,097

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dartanboy
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was unlawfully impeached. This is not okay.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanboy (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On July 19, 2026, at 9:44 am CDT, a Representative created a motion "to impeach Dartanboy from his position of Federal Judge due to breaches of the JO" [Exhibit P-001].
2. On July 19, 2026, at 10:52 am CDT, the Deputy Speaker of the House announced that the motion had passed [Exhibit P-002].
3. Impeachment is defined by the Constitution as "a constitutional remedy to address serious constitutional offenses" in Part VIII, Section 48.
4. In [2024] SCR 8, the Supreme Court vacated an impeachment for "the conviction not having constitutional basis."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. "Breaches of the JO" is not defined anywhere, and certainly has no constitutional basis.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The impeachment of Dartanboy be vacated due to having no constitutional basis.
2. $6,000 in Legal Fees.

EVIDENCE
1785439530959.png

1785439573080.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 30th day of July 2026.

 
  • Wow
Reactions: MJL

Writ of Summons


@Matthew100x is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 65

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.

 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Dartanboy
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that, on July 19, 2026, at approximately 9:44 a.m. CDT, a Representative introduced a motion to impeach the Plaintiff from his position as a Federal Court Judge based on alleged breaches connected to his conduct as a Judicial Officer.
  2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that, on July 19, 2026, at approximately 10:52 a.m. CDT, the Deputy Speaker announced that the impeachment motion had passed the House of Representatives.
  3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that section 48 of the Constitution defines impeachment as a constitutional remedy intended to address serious constitutional offences.
  4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that, in Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8, the Supreme Court vacated an impeachment because the conviction lacked a constitutional basis.
II. DEFENCES
1. Constitutional Authority of the House - The Constitution authorizes the House of Representatives to lay impeachment charges against government officials. The House exercised that constitutional authority when it introduced and passed articles of impeachment concerning the Plaintiff’s conduct as a Judicial Officer.

2. Factual Basis for the Articles of Impeachment - The impeachment was not based on hypothetical or nonexistent conduct. The Plaintiff made the post underlying the articles of impeachment during his tenure as a Judicial Officer. At the time of the impeachment vote, the members of the House reasonably considered that conduct capable of constituting a serious offence connected to the Plaintiff’s judicial position.

3. Krix Is Distinguishable - Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8 establishes that an impeachment conviction may be vacated where it lacks a constitutional basis. It does not establish that every disputed impeachment is automatically unlawful.

In Krix, the Supreme Court determined that the conduct underlying the conviction had not legally occurred and thus there was no constitutional violation to act on. Here, the underlying conduct occurred, and the dispute concerns the legal characterization and seriousness of that conduct. The Court must therefore evaluate the actual articles of impeachment and the constitutional provisions identified within them.

4. Good-Faith Exercise of Legislative Authority - The House acted on the information and legal understanding available to its members at the time of the vote. The fact that the Plaintiff disputes the House’s interpretation does not, by itself, establish that the House acted unlawfully or outside its constitutional authority.

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 July 2026.



Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dartanboy
Plaintiff
v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The Defendant separately moves for summary judgment against the Plaintiff based upon the defenses above.

 
Matthew100x said:
The impeachment was not based on hypothetical or nonexistent conduct. The Plaintiff made the post underlying the articles of impeachment during his tenure as a Judicial Officer. At the time of the impeachment vote, the members of the House reasonably considered that conduct capable of constituting a serious offence connected to the Plaintiff’s judicial position.
Click to expand...

Objection


ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

There is no evidence that I did anything, ever. Only that an Article of Impeachment passed the House against me for "breaches of the JO."

 
Matthew100x said:

Motion​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dartanboy
Plaintiff
v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The Defendant separately moves for summary judgment against the Plaintiff based upon the defenses above.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff agrees to Summary Judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top