Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 96

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dartanman
(Plaintiff)

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
(Defendant)

 COMPLAINT
First of all, this is a serious issue and I'm not comfortable hiring someone else to represent me in this case. I recognize that I am a Justice, but I am only representing myself - not someone else - so this should be permissible, as long as I recuse from similar cases that occur concurrently.

As for the complaint:
The DLA and RBI have conducted an unreasonable search and seizure against me - which the Constitution protects me from.

Furthermore, when I refused to allow the unreasonable search, I was charged with Obstruction of Justice - or at least, the RBI was instructed to charge me. I have not been in-game since this happened and it may or may not have occurred yet.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On November 5, 2023, at 3:31AM Central Time, Attorney General AlexanderLove sent me a Writ of Detention (Exhibit A)
2. The Writ of Detention stated that I was required to "appear in the Department of Legal Affairs discord by the expiration date / time to report for an interview or interrogation." and that I was "being lawfully detained." (Exhibit D)
3. I was already present in the Discord, as I never left after resigning as Attorney General. I cannot prove this but AlexanderLove knows this is true and if the DLA does not affirm this fact, I will call witnesses and object on perjury.
4. Because I was already present, the Attorney General added me to a ticket under the category "Interrogation Room" (Exhibit B).
5. I was told I was not being accused of a crime and that, therefore, my right against self incrimination did not apply (Exhibit C).
6. There is no evidence that they had reasonable suspicion that I committed a crime.
7. After the Attorney General warned me that non-compliance would result in an Obstruction of Justice charge, I provided the definition of that crime and stated I'd rather not answer any questions (Exhibit C).
8. I was then told I would be charged (Exhibit C).
9. The Constitution states "Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."
10. The Attorney General informed me I am "not suspected of a crime."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By detaining me without reasonable suspicion (and in fact, saying I am "not suspected of a crime"), the DLA violated my right against Unreasonable Seizure (because detaining me is seizing me).
2. By forcing me to answer questions, the DLA attempted to perform an Unreasonable Search of my own thoughts and memories.
3. My actions do not match the definition of Obstruction of Justice.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The DLA stop detaining me.
2. The DLA recognize the right against Unreasonable Search and Seizure.
3. The DLA issue a public apology that explains why their actions here were illegal.
4. The DLA commit to never detaining anyone without reasonable suspicion, and never attempt to conduct an unreasonable search again.
5. $20,000 in Punitive Damages, as the Attorney General and Department of Legal Affairs are expected to uphold the law. The Constitution states that Executive Officers (including the Attorney General) are to "defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth."
6. If I am charged with Obstruction of Justice, it be removed from my record and any fines/jail time be compensated for.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A:

Spoiler: Writ of Detention

Exhibit B:

Spoiler: Interrogation Room

Exhibit C:

Spoiler: Ticket Screenshot

Exhibit D: [DLA] Writ of Detention - Dartanman

Exhibit E:

Spoiler: Not A Suspect In A Crime

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 5th day of November 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION 1

I ask that the court prohibit the Commonwealth from charging me with Obstruction of Justice for these events for the duration of this case, as I was informed I'd be charged every 18 hours I do not answer questions.

This case is precisely about the legality of this and it would be unfair to allow repetitive fines and jail time while this case is ongoing.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION 2

I ask that the court order the DLA to cease my detention and interrogation for the duration of this case, as this case is about the legality of those actions and it would be unfair to allow them to continue.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dartanman vs. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 96.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of this case. I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

I will be granting both Emergency Injunctions, and order the Defendant to cease any interrogation until the conclusion of this case. The Plaintiff shall also not be charged with obstruction for the remainder of this case with the 18 hour timer also being paused.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

View attachment 38658
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dartanman vs. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 96.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of this case. I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

Present, your honor

 

[RelaxedGV]

Present, your honor

You are dismissed given you are no longer the Attorney General. @Neemfy (Pinging to notify on Forums as well)

 

[Neemfy]

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

The Commonwealth does not dispute any of the facts stated in the case, and would like to proceed to a ruling.

DATED: This 6th day of November, 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

I agree to summary judgement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Given both sides agree to a Summary Judgement, the Court will be in recess until a Verdict is written.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT/FEDERAL/SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 96

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. DLA violated the right of XV (15) of protection against wrongful search and seizure.
2. Plaintiff was threatened to be charged with Obstruction of Justice.
3. Obstruction of Justice can only be charged through willfully interfering in Process of Justice.
4. DLA wrongfully detained and threatened to charge with Obstruction if the Plaintiff rejected to question.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Affirmed Plaintiff's Position.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The DLA did violate the 15th right of protection against wrongful search and seizure through not allowing the Plaintiff to deny answering questions.
2. The DLA did wrongfully detain and force the Plaintiff to answer questions despite having the ability to reject questioning.
3. The DLA attempted to charge the Plaintiff with Obstruction of Justice when Obstruction can only be charged when you willingly interfere with the process of justice through, influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer or by providing false information. Given the evidence presented, we can see that the DLA was investigating a current crime and that the Plaintiff was a potential witness at the time.
4. One of the responsibilities laid out to the DLA by the Constitution is to investigate. That is without violating the rights, Constitution, or laws in the process. In this case one of each has occurred. A right has been violated (Right XV) and a law has been grossly misinterpreted by Former Attorney General AlexanderLove.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff and grant most of the Prayers for Relief. Those prayers being:
2. The DLA stop detaining the Plaintiff.
3. Any Obstruction of Justice charges be dropped against the Plaintiff.
4. DLA issues a Public Apology to all that it affected with these actions.
5. $15,000 in Punitive Damages awarded from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
6. Finally, the DLA is to commit to focusing on making sure any investigations that occur follow the Constitution and laws currently limiting and enforceable by the Federal Government.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.