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

[Dartanboy]

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.

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

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

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.

 

[Superwoops]

I recuse due to prior public statements.

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am filing a notice of appearance on the behalf of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

 

[ko531]

I am filing a notice of appearance on the behalf of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

You have 48 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

 

[Matthew100x]

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

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]

Counselor I appreciate the objection, but this is an inference from an affirmed fact. The inference is that "due to breaches of the JO" means "breaches of a judicial officer."

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

The Plaintiff agrees to Summary Judgement.

 

[ko531]

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."

Objection Overruled.

I think it is safe to take judicial notice and agree that JO is a common abbreviation of "Judicial Officer," which makes sense according to the plaintiff's first fact, as they were impeached when they were a federal judge. With this, the House laid out a cognizable reason in its impeachment.

The commonwealth in the objected statement only stated that there was some reason for Congress to do this impeachment. Although there is no direct evidence to support this statement, I will not assume the opposite solely because of that. I am not saying it is, therefore a valid impeachment regarding the law, just that I find it absurd to assume that an entire chamber of Congress acted without reason or even worse without regard for the law.

 

[ko531]

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.

The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The case is in recess pending verdict.

 

[ko531]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 65

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
The Plaintiff seeks to have the House's motion for impeachment against them invalidated for not having the constitutional basis required by the Constitution and established in [2024] SCR 8.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
The House has the constitutional authority to lay impeachment charges on the defendant. Just because there is a dispute over these charges does not automatically make them unlawful in the same way laid out in [2024] SCR 8.

III. THE COURT OPINION
When examining the impeachment laid out by the House against the plaintiff, two documents are cited for its illegality. The first being the constitution, which will, of course, be beneficial when making any decision. The second is the precedent set in [2024] SCR 8. This second document is largely disputed as to its use in this case. When examining [2024] SCR 8, the court finds it largely mute and inapplicable when regarding this case.

[2024] SCR 8 looked at the Senate's decision to convict in the impeachment process. What this case aims to look at is the House's ability to lay charges for impeachment, something [2024] SCR 8 never discussed. So simply [2024] SCR 8 is inapplicable in this case.

Now reviewing Part VII Section 48(1) of the Constitution, the court sees only one requirement on the House's ability to lay charges. That being "specifying what constitutional provisions were violated." In this impeachment, the charges laid against the plaintiff are "Breaches of the JO." The court must ask, is "JO" in any way a constitutional provision? The court takes judicial notice to confidently say that "JO" is a common abbreviation for the term Judicial Officer. This would make sense as the Plaintiff was being impeached as a Judicial Officer, being a federal judge.

So is "Judicial Officer" a Constitutional provision? In fact, it is. Part II, Section 21 of the Constitution is called "Judicial Officer," in which a few responsibilities or powers are granted to either specific or all Judicial officers. This includes the phrase "They are responsible for presiding over and delivering unbiased verdicts in all lawsuits." Such responsibility could be violated by a Judicial officer.

The fact of whether or not the plaintiff breached this constitutional provision or any provision in Part II, Section 21 is irrelevant. The impeachment trial is meant for the fact finding, with the Senate being responsible for determining guilt. All that is required for the House to lay any impeachment charge is to include a violated constitutional provision. "Breaching of the JO" can be read as alleging a violation of Part II Section 21 of the Constitution. For this, the House laid valid impeachment charges against the plaintiff, and this court can not vacate such charges.


IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.


The Federal Court thanks all parties involved. Court is now adjourned.