- Joined
- Apr 25, 2025
- Messages
- 3
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Dearev (multiman155 representing)
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Homeland Security
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On 27 April 2025, Dearev was present at an official government press conference. During the conference, Dearev was arrested by jorinton, an employee of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). After being arrested, Dearev’s rights were not read to the Plaintiff, and a lawful reason for arrest was not provided. Instead, the Plaintiff was informed that Defendant and Defendant’s agents were charging Plaintiff with “yes”, and the Plaintiff was summarily sent to jail for 50 minutes. This is a wanton violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms the constitution guarantees to the Plaintiff. Due process is not optional: the rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution of Redmont, especially those granted to the accused, are vital to ensuring that the justice system remains fair and trusted. Alas, because of these unconstitutional actions of the DHS, Dearev has been subjected to deprivation of liberty, harm to reputation, and immense personal suffering—all without being provided an opportunity to defend themself against any particular charge.
I. PARTIES
1. Dearev
2. Department of Homeland Security
II. FACTS
1. On 27 April 2025, the Plaintiff, Redmont citizen Dearev was present at an official government press conference (“the press conference”).
2. While present at the press conference, Dearev was arrested by an agent of the Department of Homeland Security named jorinton; see Exhibit 4).
3. Following Dearev’s arrest, a crime record was created, and Dearev was imprisoned for 50 minutes (see: Exhibit 1).
4. The reason for imprisonment and arrest of Dearev was given only as “yes” (see: Exhibit 1).
5. This imprisonment included solitary confinement, with the reason for confinement being given only as “yes” (see: Exhibit 2).
6. Section 33, Clause 9 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[a]ny citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.”
7. Section 33, Clause 17 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[e]very citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.”
8. The Miranda Warning Act states that “Every citizen charged with an offense must: a. be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense; b. be advised, without unreasonable delay, that they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them.”
9. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Trespassing and Theft Offenses Act.
10. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Bank Trespass Act.
11. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Miscellaneous Offenses Act.
12. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Government Service Offenses Act.
13. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Violent Offences Act.
14. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Verbally Threatening Act.
15. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Illicit Trafficking Offenses Act.
16. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Vehicular Offenses Act.
17. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Animal & Pet Offences Act.
18. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Health & Medical Offenses Act.
19. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Accomplice and Conspiracy Offenses Act.
20. The stated reason for imprisonment and solitary confinement of “yes” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in any other law.
21. Upon seeing the reason for arrest, the Plaintiff publicly objected to the reason of “yes” for his arrest (see figure 3). This message was sent at 6:32 P.M. UTC -3, which is 11:32 P.M. CEST (UTC +2).
22. “Yes” is not an identifiable crime. It means nothing sensible, does not inform anyone of the nature of accusations against the Plaintiff, and does not allow the Plaintiff to defend themself against the meaningless allegation.
23. The Standardized Criminal Code Act states that “If a criminal offense fails to be specified as an Indictable or Summary Offense, then its classification shall be decided by the following: (i) If a crime has a first offense fine of over $2,000 and/or a first offense jail time of over 30 minutes, then it shall be classified as an Indictable Criminal Offense; (ii) If a crime does not meet the requirements to be an Indictable Criminal Offense as outlined above, then it shall be classified as a Summary Criminal Offense.”
24. Prior to 27 April 2025, the Plaintiff had never been charged with “yes” as a crime, nor punished for it, nor convicted of “yes” at trial.
25. The Plaintiff had never been charged, nor punished, nor convicted of “yes” prior to 27 April 2025 because “yes” is not a crime.
26. However, if (for sake of argument) “yes” were to be an identifiable crime under the law, this would be the Plaintiff’s first offense, as the Plaintiff had never been convicted of it prior.
27. If the punishment for “yes” on first offense would be 50 minutes of jail time, and if “yes” were to be a crime then “yes” would necessarily be an indictable crime.
28. Therefore, while “yes” is not a crime, no indictment was made against the Plaintiff, nor was the Plaintiff given a trial; the Department of Homeland Security simply imprisoned the Plaintiff summarily.
29. The Plaintiff was jailed for 50 minutes and subject to solitary confinement without having been charged with an identifiable offense and without a trial.
30. The Plaintiff was not confronted with the evidence against them by officials who had accused the Plaintiff of running afoul of the law, even as the Department of Homeland Security held the Plaintiff in confinement.
31. The Plaintiff was not permitted time to consult with counsel for their defense prior to being jailed for 50 minutes and subjected to solitary confinement.
32. The Plaintiff was not even advised that they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them.
33. The failure of DHS and its agents to inform the Plaintiff of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence to be used against the Plaintiff, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence, in total amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
34. The failure of DHS and its agents to inform the Plaintiff of the specific offense, and failure of the DHS and its agents to advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent and that any statement the Plaintiff makes may be used as evidence against the Plaintiff, each amount to a violation of the statutory and constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
35. Section 33, Clause 4 of the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act creates the criminal offense of “Police Misconduct”, defining it as “The act of issuing punishments that conflict with the punishments specifically outlined in law.”
36. By jailing the Plaintiff for 50 minutes for the non-crime of “yes”, the DHS and its agents have issued a punishment against the Plaintiff not specifically outlined in the law.
37. Section 33, Clause 15 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
38. In arresting, transporting, and imprisoning the Plaintiff, DHS and its agents did seize the Plaintiff.
39. Because the only reason provided by DHS or its agents to Plaintiff on the basis that the Plaintiff had committed the non-existent crime of “yes”, this seizure was unreasonable.
40. The Plaintiff holds a position in the Department of Justice (DoJ) as an investigator. Criminal conviction may be a bar to further employment with the DoJ, and would cause the Plaintiff substantial financial hardship.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. As noted in the Facts section of this complaint, Section 33, Clause 9 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[a]ny citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.” Additionally, Section 33, Clause 17 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[e]very citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.” The DHS and its agents ignored all of this, depriving the Plaintiff of their fundamental and well-established constitutional rights.
2. To uphold these rights, the Miranda Warning Act requires that “every citizen charged with an offense must: a. be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense; b. be advised, without unreasonable delay, that they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them.” The Defendant and its agents did not inform the Plaintiff that they were being charged with any specific offense that exists under the law, nor Defendant’s agents advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent or that the Plaintiff’s statements may be used against them in a court of law. In doing so, DHS and its agents have violated the plaintiff’s statutory rights, in addition to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
3. As stated in Section 4, Clause 1(a) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “in civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed.” The Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of police misconduct as defined within the Corruption and Espionage Offenses act, the Plaintiff was subject to deprivation of liberty, unlawful imprisonment, and violation of the Plaintiff’s statutory and constitutional rights. What’s more, as is stated in Section 5, Clause 1(a) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “Punishments to those who commit crimes shall be doubled if they are at an official session or event.” As the arrest and initial deprivation of rights took place at an official government press conference, the Plaintiff may seek double damages directly incurred due to criminal actions by DHS agents who violated Plaintiff’s statutory and constitutional rights.
4. As stated in Section 4, Clause 2(c) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offenses.” The arrest and subsequent 50-minute imprisonment of the Plaintiff's were unlawful and, as no valid charges were presented or proven. The creation of a crime record as a result of police misconduct creates a substantial reputational liability for the Plaintiff that harms the plaintiff’s ability to earn income going forwards.
5. As stated in Section 33, Clauses 14-15 of the Constitution of Redmont state, “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice[; e]very citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” By arresting, transporting, and imprisoning the Plaintiff, while only alleging the non-crime of “yes”, the Defendant and its agents did seize the Plaintiff and deprive the Plaintiff of liberty. But the Plaintiff had not been charged with any particular crime that exists in any Redmont law, meaning that the seizure was unreasonable and violated the Plaintiff’s core constitutional rights and principles of fundamental justice.
6. Section 33, Clause 16 of the Constitution states that “[n]o citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted, in accordance with the law.”
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $2,500 in compensatory damages under Section 4, Clause 2(c) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, which entitles the Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely.
2. $20,000 in compensatory damages for the violation of the Plaintiff’s rights at a government event via police misconduct. The police misconduct, in totality, created a crime record that indicates that the Plaintiff was jailed for 50 minutes for a crime. This crime record creates a reputational liability for the Plaintiff forever more, and harms the Plaintiff’s ability to continue to earn income in government roles while having deprived Plaintiff the ability to defend themselves. The misconduct was an extreme and grave example of total disregard for constitutional protections and due process of law, and may cause the Plaintiff substantial and severe economic hardship going forward.
3. $100,000 in emotional damages. The Plaintiff was arrested, told that they had committed “yes”, and put away. This has caused the plaintiff tremendous emotional distress, as the plaintiff was put in fear for life, liberty, safety, and property.
4. $367,500 in punitive damages. Because of the outrageous and wanton scale of violations of constitutional and statutory rights that has occurred here, and to discourage this from ever occurring again, the Plaintiff seeks treble punitive damages.
5. $147,000 in legal fees as it is 30% of the value of this case, with no less than $6,000 in legal fees as mandated by the Legal Damages Act (or no less than $5,000 should summary judgement occur without witnesses being called).
6. The Plaintiff asks the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Defendant to remove any crime records associated with the arrest or events during the government press conference on 27 April 2025, and to further enjoin the Defendant from pursing charges regarding the events of that conference anew in order to prevent double jeopardy.
7. The Plaintiff asks the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Defendant to write and publish a public and sincere apology for failing to inform the Plaintiff of the reason for the Plaintiff’s arrest, failing to inform the Plaintiff of specific charges for which Plaintiff was jailed, and failing to inform the Plaintiff of Plaintiff’s rights under the Miranda Warning Act.
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
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 twenty-seventh day of April anno domini two-thousand twenty five.
Addendum - Retainer:
