Lawsuit: In Session DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


DocTheory (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complaints against the Defendant as follows:

A severe and grave miscarriage of justice has occurred, and it must be set right. In no humane society would a person be sentenced and forced to serve a prison sentence requiring over two real-life months of consistent working off for a crime that, by law, warrants no jail time whatsoever. There was no trial, no due process, just a unilateral declaration. Resisting arrest is the only crime that the Plaintiff has been charged with. This crime is a summary offence with a fine of $100 – perhaps the most inconsequential ‘slap on the wrist’ that can possibly be given as punishment to a citizen. Instead of being handed this minute fine and being allowed to go on with the rest of his life, DocTheory was forced to serve over 140 hours of jail time, down from his original sentence of over 166 hours. One hundred and forty hours in Revcatraz, with nothing to do but hard labour in the mines and solemn contemplation in a cell. There is no excuse nor explanation that could even come close to justifying this ridiculous sentencing. Not only this, but the Commonwealth was duly notified through official channels, and public statements were made about this miscarriage of justice. What did the government do to correct its atrocious mistakes? Absolutely nothing. This behaviour, which so carelessly disregards the fundamental principles that our very civilisation is built upon, has left the Plaintiff with no other course of action. That is why today the Plaintiff comes to the Court, battered and broken, in search of redress.

I. PARTIES

1. DocTheory (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. DocTheory was sentenced to jail for ‘Logging out while handcuffed’. This sentence dates back to the 22nd of December, 2024. (P-003)
2. DocTheory was given a sentence of 6 days, 22 hours, and 50 minutes in jail. (P-001)
3. DocTheory had no jail records prior to ‘Logging out while handcuffed’
4. Following his sentencing, DocTheory left the server, and rejoined on the 23rd of February, 2025. (P-006)
5. The Department of Homeland Security was contacted regarding DocTheory’s unjust imprisonment, and no action was taken to address the situation. (P-004)
6. DocTheory was released from prison early, presumably by staff, with no explanation whatsoever on the 25th of March. (P-005)
7. In total, DocTheory served 5 days, 18 minutes, and 24 seconds of in-game jail time, having skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining and the early release. (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. According to § 4.(6) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act, Resisting Arrest (‘Logging out while handcuffed’) is a summary offence with a fine of $100 per offence and no associated jail time.
2. The Plaintiff had his 14th Constitutional Right violated, which reads ‘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’. DocTheory was forced to serve over 120 hours of jail time for a crime that should not have landed him in jail in the first place. These actions by the Commonwealth completely and utterly violated DocTheory’s rights to life, liberty, and security, and any notion of fundamental justice was thoroughly discarded.
3. In the case of GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11, the plaintiff received a similar, though shorter, unjust sentence, and the court ruled in his favour in granting nearly all of the requested damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $420,900 of compensation at a rate of $50 per minute for a total of 8,418 minutes, as outlined in the Standardized Criminal Code Act § 4.2.(c).
2. $300,000 in punitive damages for the gross miscarriage of justice of sentencing a citizen to over 140 hours of jail time for a crime that only warrants a $100 fine, as well as failure to properly redress the issue when it was discovered. In [2025] FCR 11, the plaintiff was awarded $150,000 in punitive damages for an unjust sentence that was under half the time of DocTheory’s. It is evident that significantly more punitive action is necessary in order to prevent this outrageous and morally reprehensible behaviour from occurring again, and to properly penalise the Commonwealth for its repeated unconscionable actions in regards to the proper carrying out of justice that violated the Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights.
3. $300,000 for the immense loss of enjoyment in Redmont that comes from being unable to play the game outside of jail for over 5 days of in-game playtime, and over two months of real time. This absolutely egregious amount of time spent in jail stripped DocTheory of the ability to live a normal life in Redmont, participate in any and all events and elections, or otherwise engage with the in-game community in any meaningful way for two entire months – all over a crime that should have been punished with a measly $100 fine.
4. $5,115 in compensatory damages for the opportunity cost incurred from the incorrect sentencing. DocTheory has attended to 29 patients during the period of time since his release on the 25th of March to the 11th of April (P-007). Each patient cured earns DocTheory $100. At a rate of 1.705 patients per day, and over the course of serving his sentence between the 23rd of February and his release (for a total of 30 days), DocTheory is likely to have made $5,115 from curing patients.
5. $307,804 in legal fees, equal to 30% of the case value, as outlined in § 9 of the Legal Damages Act.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Witness List:
DocTheory

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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 10th day of May, 2025.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@juniperfig is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Doctheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

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.

 

[AmityBlamity]

The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.

 

[ko531]

You have 72 hours to provide your answer to complaint

 

[AmityBlamity]

You have 72 hours to provide your answer to complaint

Respectfully requesting a 24 hour extension, Your Honor. Dealing with a sick kid.

 

[ko531]

Respectfully requesting a 24 hour extension, Your Honor. Dealing with a sick kid.

Granted

 

[AmityBlamity]

Answer to Complaint

Answer to Complaint​

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

DocTheory
Plaintiff

v.

Comm
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRMS that DocTheory was sentenced to jail for ‘Logging out while handcuffed’, and that this sentence dates back to the 22nd of December, 2024.
2. AFFIRMS that the plaintiff received a sentence of 6 days, 22 hours, and 50 minutes in jail, but DENIES this was the fault of the Commonwealth.
3. DOES NOT DISPUTE that DocTheory had no jail records prior to ‘Logging out while handcuffed’.
4. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that following his sentencing, DocTheory left the server, and rejoined on the 23rd of February, 2025.
5. AFFIRMS that the Department of Homeland Security was contacted regarding DocTheory’s unjust imprisonment, but DENIES that no action was taken to address the situation.
6. AFFIRMS that DocTheory was released from prison early on the 25th of March, but NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that it was presumably by staff, with no explanation whatsoever.
7. AFFIRMS that in total, DocTheory served 5 days, 18 minutes, and 24 seconds of in-game jail time, having skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining and early release.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff is falsely accusing the Commonwealth of purposefully locking up DocTheory for nearly a week, and throwing away the key. The truth of the situation is that this was a plugin error (D-001). There was absolutely zero input from the DHS in this matter, it was an automatic process. The Department of Homeland Security cannot be held liable for a glitch which it had no control over. In fact, plaintiff agrees with this assessment. D-002 through D-005 exhibits that the plaintiff acknowledged that this wasn’t an action of the Commonwealth, but was instead a glitch.

2.This is a vastly different situation to GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11. GnomeWhisperer’s unjust sentence was the result of an individual abusing their power, while DocTheory’s sentence was the result of a glitch. As shown in the precedent set by Commonwealth of Redmont v. l3afyy [2023] FCR 44, the fault of a plugin should result in any police liability being waived.

3. There is not sufficient proof that DocTheory exhausted all avenues to be released. To the contrary, DocTheory was very happy to remain in jail. As per D-006 through D-010, plaintiff was very happy to wait out the glitched sentence, because it meant he’d “be very rich when [he] get out”. This case is nothing more than a shakedown, designed to rob taxpayers.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 19th day of May 2025

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor, plaintiff’s counsel cites P-003 numerous times to support their facts. However, they have not provided P-003.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, in Fact 5 plaintiff’s counsel cite P-004 as proof the DHS was contacted, but P-004 appears to be a photo of the plaintiff’s arrest record. There’s a similar issue with Fact 6, where P-005 is purported to show DocTheory’s early release, but instead appears to be an unrelated message from Interception.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Objection

OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor, plaintiff’s counsel cites P-003 numerous times to support their facts. However, they have not provided P-003.

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, in Fact 5 plaintiff’s counsel cite P-004 as proof the DHS was contacted, but P-004 appears to be a photo of the plaintiff’s arrest record. There’s a similar issue with Fact 6, where P-005 is purported to show DocTheory’s early release, but instead appears to be an unrelated message from Interception.

Apologies for the incorrectly labeled evidence - I seem to have skipped the number 3. The complaint has been amended to reflect the proper numbering. It should be clear that a minor error in numbering does not call for objection to the evidence itself.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

Plaintiff requests a response to the motion.

 

[ko531]

Apologies for the incorrectly labeled evidence - I seem to have skipped the number 3. The complaint has been amended to reflect the proper numbering. It should be clear that a minor error in numbering does not call for objection to the evidence itself.


Plaintiff requests a response to the motion.

You may respond to the motion to dismiss

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

Response

Your honour, I would like to provide three defences in opposition to this motion to dismiss.

I. The defence has not shown that the overblown jail time was the result of a plugin error. All the defence has shown is that the proper jail time was 15 minutes, and that it was applied automatically.

II. Even if the jail time was the result of a plugin error, the legislation is clear:

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 offences.

Punishment was imposed on DocTheory. He was not found guilty of a crime that warranted that punishment. The defence has offered no proof that he was guilty of such a crime. DocTheory shall be compensated for his misattributed jail time, regardless of whether it was the Commonwealth's "fault" or not, and DocTheory cannot sue Staff to earn this compensation.

III. Even if the initial sentencing was not strictly the fault of the Commonwealth, the government has still failed to uphold its duty of care to its citizens by outright refusing to make any attempt to address this concern. It is not Staff's high-security jail that DocTheory was imprisoned in, but the Commonwealth's. And yet, even after being duly and promptly notified of the error by the plaintiff, and even after strong and continued public outcry from the plaintiff (as so helpfully evidenced by the defence), the government spectacularly failed to act. This represents a clear breach of the government's constitutional duties.

For these reasons, we contend that the Commonwealth is indeed a clear second party that has inflicted injury upon the plaintiff, and we respectfully urge the Court to allow this case to continue to be heard in the name of justice.

 

[ko531]

Objection

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, in Fact 5 plaintiff’s counsel cite P-004 as proof the DHS was contacted, but P-004 appears to be a photo of the plaintiff’s arrest record. There’s a similar issue with Fact 6, where P-005 is purported to show DocTheory’s early release, but instead appears to be an unrelated message from Interception.

As both objections pertain to the mislabeling of evidence which the plaintiff has fixed, both objections are Overruled

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The injury plaintiff is claiming, an excessive jail sentence, was the result of a glitched plugin. As per Court Rules and Procedures §2.1.1, there must be a clear second party that inflicted this injury. In this situation, there is none. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the time the plaintiff spent in jail. It was a glitch, an undisputed fact of the case.

Per Court Rules and Procedures §5.5, there is insufficient evidence to support this civil charge. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence showcasing the Commonwealth was responsible for this sentence. Furthermore as per the evidence we provided, plaintiff is, and was, fully aware that his jail sentence was a bot error.

Motion to dismiss is denied

The clear second party would be the commonwealth in this case, either damages caused in the jailing itself of the negligence in facilitating his release. Even if this was caused by a glitch, it does not remove the duty of the commonwealth to release him if informed.

 

[ko531]

We will now be entering Discovery, discovery will last 72 hours starting now.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Request for Discovery:

Could the plaintiff please provide the transcript of the DHS ticket they opened on the 3rd of March?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Request for Discovery:

Could the plaintiff please provide the transcript of the DHS ticket they opened on the 3rd of March?

After contacting my client's former counsel, Angryhamdog, we were able to obtain the transcript. Neither I nor DocTheory had access to it because we were not added to the ticket, despite request for such. Plaintiff enters the following screenshots into evidence, pursuant to the Commonwealth's request:

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

The plaintiff would like to respond.

 

[ko531]

The plaintiff would like to respond.

You may, you have 24 hours.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant hereby respectfully requests an extension to Discovery in line with Rule 4.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[Kaiserin_]

The Defendant hereby respectfully requests an extension to Discovery in line with Rule 4.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Plaintiff consents to an extension of discovery.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

Response

Your honour, it is the continued negligence and miscarriage of justice by the Commonwealth that is at issue in this case. The offence we allege was an ongoing one, not a single event, and it was a continuous offence against my client every day that he was not released from prison. DocTheory was only released on 25 March, 2025, less than two months before the filing of this case. The defence is grasping at straws.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.10 (Statue of Limitations), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The SCR ruling in SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont states that "The statue of limitations for civil cases is four months. see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act)."
2. Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states that "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if the timing of the filing of the case exceeded the statute of limitiations."
3. Per Fact 1 of the Complaint, the incorrect jailing happened on the 22nd of December, 2024.
4. The statute of limitations for the incorrect jailing was up until the 22nd of April 2025, four months after the 22nd of December 2024. This case was filed on the 10th of May 2025.

The case should therefore be dismissed per Rule 5.10

Motion to dismiss denied

This case is looking at more then just the alleged illegal sentence that DocTheory recieve but also the commonwealth's duty to correct its wrong. Statue of Limitation begins counting when a violation/offense has completed especially when that violation/offense is continuous like in this case. The alleged negligence by the commowealth is not a behavior that can be clearly defined to a single act. The legal idea being refered to here is called the "continuing violations" doctrine which allows acts outside of the normal statue of limitations to still be litigated if they were continuous and not completely outside of those same statue of limitations exactly like this case is.

 

[ko531]

The Defendant hereby respectfully requests an extension to Discovery in line with Rule 4.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Discovery extention granted

Discovery is extended by 5 days from the original end date.

 

[gribble19]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY

The Defense hereby requests a screenshot of the message "90 hours left" from DocTheory as shown in P-005 that shows the date and time on which this message was sent.

 

[Kaiserin_]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY

The Defense hereby requests a screenshot of the message "90 hours left" from DocTheory as shown in P-005 that shows the date and time on which this message was sent.

It is hereby provided.

Spoiler: P-011

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Defense requests a further 24 hour extension of Discovery so that they can take actions based on the evidence that has now been provided by the Plaintiff.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, the Defense requests a further 24 hour extension of Discovery so that they can take actions based on the evidence that has now been provided by the Plaintiff.

granted

 

[Kaiserin_]

The Plaintiff would like to tender the following additional witnesses:
2. Angryhamdog (DHS Secretary)
3. Staff

 

[Kaiserin_]

After a request, we will be removing Angryhamdog from the witness list. Plaintiff's current witnesses are DocTheory and Staff.

 

[gribble19]

The Defense enters the following pieces of evidence.

Spoiler: D-011

Spoiler: D-012

 

[gribble19]

The Defense would like to amend their Answer to Complaint as follows due to the information provided in D-011 and D-012
(edits in yellow)

7. DENIES that in total, DocTheory served 5 days, 18 minutes, and 24 seconds of in-game jail time, having skipped 1 day, 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds from mining and early release.