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

Status
Not open for further replies.
@DocsTheory

1. How much in-game playtime did you spend in prison?
2. At any point during your incarceration did you escape from prison?
3. In D-009, you are quoted as saying "can lie dont care if the jailtime is longer". Can you provide context to this statement?
4. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?
5. To the best of your knowledge, did your previous counsel, Angryhamhog and Kaiserin_, provide your current counsel, Patototongo1, with all documents, evidence, communications, and anything else they had collected that was relevant to this case?
6. Do you recall who you killed during the Christmas event?
7. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?

The defense reserves the right to ask additional questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kaiserin_ said:
The Plaintiff would like to tender the following additional witnesses:
2. Angryhamdog (DHS Secretary)
3. Staff
Click to expand...


Your honor,

It seems previous council did add another witness to the witness list during discovery (Lawsuit: In Session - DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42) who was not issued a writ of summons at the beginning of questioning, the Plaintiff would like to bring this issue to the court’s attention and respectfully request that a writ of summons be issued for the individual Angryhamdog to amend this oversight.

[Edited to fix issue with link]
 
Last edited:
AmityBlamity said:
5. To the best of your knowledge, did your previous counsel, Angryhamhog and Kaiserin_, provide your current counsel, Patototongo1, with all documents, evidence, communications, and anything else they had collected that was relevant to this case?
Click to expand...

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 
AmityBlamity said:
4. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?
Click to expand...
AmityBlamity said:
7. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?
Click to expand...

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 
AmityBlamity said:
3. In D-009, you are quoted as saying "can lie dont care if the jailtime is longer". Can you provide context to this statement?
Click to expand...

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...

Motion


Response to Objection

Your Honor, you'll note I prefaced the question with "to the best of your knowledge". Regardless, it is absolutely reasonable to assume plaintiff has some idea as to what his counsel shared amongst one another. Furthermore, this inquiry does not risk breaching attorney-client privilege. All we require from the plaintiff is a yes or no response. We are not asking for specifics in regards to the documents.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...

Response


Response to Objection

Your Honor, as you are no doubt aware, more direct questioning is allowed on cross-examination. Regardless, this objection, as plaintiff's counsel is fond of saying, is entirely without merit. The question “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” isn't calling for a conclusion, because one was made by plaintiff himself. The question seeks to clarify why they thought this. Likewise, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” is purely based on the facts. Plaintiff was arrested on December 22nd, and, to the best of the defense's knowledge, only contacted the DHS on March 3rd. We are not looking for subjective reasoning, but the solid facts that fill in the gaps.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...

Response


Response to Objection

Your Honor, Oxford Languages defines context as "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood". Plaintiff's counsel is attempting to muddy the waters and attempt to make our simple question more vague than it actually is.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The information is protected by attorney-client privilege especially with the adding of "To the best of your knowledge" as any knowledge used to answer this question would only be received from communications with the plaintiff and their counsel. The question will be struck.


Patototongo1 said:

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The witnesses is qualified to state reasoning or opinions for their own actions or statements. The questions are also not after opinions directly but the factual cause of the plaintiff's statements and actions.


Patototongo1 said:

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...
Sustained. please rephrase the question.
 
ko531 said:
Sustained. The information is protected by attorney-client privilege especially with the adding of "To the best of your knowledge" as any knowledge used to answer this question would only be received from communications with the plaintiff and their counsel. The question will be struck.



Overruled. The witnesses is qualified to state reasoning or opinions for their own actions or statements. The questions are also not after opinions directly but the factual cause of the plaintiff's statements and actions.



Sustained. please rephrase the question.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, for the sake of avoiding prolonged testimony, the defense will be retracting question 3 entirely. We retain the right to ask additional questions dependant on the plaintiff's answers.
 
@DocsTheory please answer questions 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 in the next 24 hours or be held in contempt.
 
  1. How much in-game playtime did you spend in prison?,
At least 76 hours
  1. At any point during your incarceration did you escape from prison?,
In line with Const. 32(5), I choose to invoke the fifth charter right.
  1. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?,
My attorney was told in the ticket with the DHS that it was likely to be a glitch.
  1. Do you recall who you killed during the Christmas event?,
In line with Const. 32(5), I choose to invoke the fifth charter right.
  1. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?,
At the time of the arrest I was not playing DC, I quit for a year and only came back for a brief play session during the Christmas event.
 
Does the defense have any follow up questions?
 
DocsTheory said:
  1. How much in-game playtime did you spend in prison?,
At least 76 hours
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The question was how much in-game playtime was spent in prison, the witness has failed to provide a number and has instead given a lower bound, which was not asked for. The witness should provide an exact number to answer the question, to the best of their ability.


DocsTheory said:
  1. At any point during your incarceration did you escape from prison?,
In line with Const. 32(5), I choose to invoke the fifth charter right.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The witness has not answered the question. Escaping from prison is not a crime, and therefore answering the question could not possibly incriminate the witness, they should not be able to invoke the fifth charter right.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case concerns the unlawful deprivation of liberty and the failure of the Commonwealth to remedy an acknowledged injustice. The Plaintiff, DocTheory, was sentenced on December 22, 2024, to nearly seven days of in-game incarceration—a total of over 8,400 minutes—for the offense of logging out while handcuffed, a violation classified under § 4.(6) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act as Resisting Arrest, which is a summary offense carrying only a $100 fine and absolutely no jail time.

No trial was held. No judicial discretion was exercised. Due process was not upheld; this is a fact. If nothing else, the court will find this. A clear violation of the Plaintiff's rights under § IV.(32)(9) of the Constitution. Additionally it is paramount to note that the punishment was automatically imposed, no judicial action was attempted by the government subsequent to the sentencing, and the punishment far exceeded what the law prescribes.

After receiving this sentence, the Plaintiff promptly reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security and clearly continued to raise concern both through direct channels and publicly. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth took no corrective action during the Plaintiff’s incarceration. The defense has provided no evidence of corrective action being taken by the government. The Plaintiff ultimately served 5 days and 18 minutes of in-game jail time—or approximately 140 hours—while the defense denies this, they have failed to provide concrete evidence or an alternative figure. In contrast, the Plaintiff has submitted clear documentation of the time served. As well, the Department of Homeland Security has not provided an explanation to the Plaintiff for the release on March 25, 2025. The government has failed to justify itself on this date, and why the plaintiff was not released sooner.

The defense has claimed the sentence was the result of a plugin error, yet no evidence has been produced to confirm the nature of that error, its cause, or whether appropriate safeguards were in place to prevent such an outcome. Moreover, the government has failed to provide any technical justification or explanation supporting the existence or mechanics of this alleged plugin failure, and as such, has not cleared itself of responsibility.
Even if a technical error did occur, the law remains clear: under the Standardized Criminal Code Act § 4.2.(c). (emphasis mine),



Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to liberty, as enshrined in § IV.(32)(14) of the Constitution, was violated when the government failed to intervene or rectify the improper sentence—despite being made aware of it (the awareness being a fact the defense has not denied). In addition to statutory damages, the Plaintiff also suffered measurable financial and participatory harm, having been unable to engage in professional, political, or civic life during the entirety of his imprisonment.

This Court will see that:

  • The Plaintiff was sentenced for a summary offense that does not warrant incarceration;
  • The Plaintiff was not found guilty of any offense justifying his sentence;
  • The Commonwealth was made aware of the situation and no action was taken by any party until well after the harm had occurred;
  • And that under established law and precedent, including GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11, the Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
This is not a matter of policy disagreement or technicality. It is a straightforward application of statutory law and constitutional protections. The Plaintiff asks the Court to enforce those protections, as written, and grant the appropriate remedies for the harm sustained.

Nothing further at this time,
Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 10 June 2025.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Plaintiff in their Opening Stated states that "After receiving this sentence, the Plaintiff promptly reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security". Your Honor, this is a lie and a misrepresentation of facts. The Plaintiff reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security on the 3rd of March 2025 and received the sentence on the 22nd of December 2024. It took the Plaintiff 71 days to report the issue to the Department of Homeland Security. This is by no means "promptly" and describing it as such is a clear misrepresentation of facts. In order for Perjury to be apparent, it needs to be established that the misrepresentation is intentional. We therefore point to the following: The answer to the 7th question asked clearly shows that Plaintiff is, was, and has been well aware of the dates on which the sentence was received, and the date on which the report happened. Furthermore, the date of sentencing has been established as a fact within the case (See II.1 of the Complaint and I.1 of the Answer to the Complaint) and the date on which the report happened is part of the evidence of this case (See P-008, P-009, P-010). It is clear that the Plaintiff was aware of this, and intentionally misrepresented the facts in their opening statement.

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court find the Plaintiff guilty of Perjury and punishes them accordingly.

 
ko531 said:
Does the defense have any follow up questions?
Click to expand...
The Defendant would like to reserve the right to ask follow-up questions based on the rulings on the objections and the potentially amended answers given by the witness.
 
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The question was how much in-game playtime was spent in prison, the witness has failed to provide a number and has instead given a lower bound, which was not asked for. The witness should provide an exact number to answer the question, to the best of their ability.



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE
The witness has not answered the question. Escaping from prison is not a crime, and therefore answering the question could not possibly incriminate the witness, they should not be able to invoke the fifth charter right.

Click to expand...
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE
Sustained. @DocsTheory please answer to the best of your ability the total amount of time you spent in prison

OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE
Sustained. @DocsTheory please answer question 2


gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Plaintiff in their Opening Stated states that "After receiving this sentence, the Plaintiff promptly reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security". Your Honor, this is a lie and a misrepresentation of facts. The Plaintiff reported the issue to the Department of Homeland Security on the 3rd of March 2025 and received the sentence on the 22nd of December 2024. It took the Plaintiff 71 days to report the issue to the Department of Homeland Security. This is by no means "promptly" and describing it as such is a clear misrepresentation of facts. In order for Perjury to be apparent, it needs to be established that the misrepresentation is intentional. We therefore point to the following: The answer to the 7th question asked clearly shows that Plaintiff is, was, and has been well aware of the dates on which the sentence was received, and the date on which the report happened. Furthermore, the date of sentencing has been established as a fact within the case (See II.1 of the Complaint and I.1 of the Answer to the Complaint) and the date on which the report happened is part of the evidence of this case (See P-008, P-009, P-010). It is clear that the Plaintiff was aware of this, and intentionally misrepresented the facts in their opening statement.

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court find the Plaintiff guilty of Perjury and punishes them accordingly.

Click to expand...
Sustained. @Patototongo1 will be charged with perjury for the false statement.
 
ko531 said:
OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE
Sustained. @DocsTheory please answer to the best of your ability the total amount of time you spent in prison

OBJECTION - NON RESPONSIVE
Sustained. @DocsTheory please answer question 2



Sustained. @Patototongo1 will be charged with perjury for the false statement.
Click to expand...
@DocsTheory Answer questions 1 and 2 in the next 24 hours or be held in contempt
 
1. I served 78 hours in prison

2.no I did not escape prison
 
Does the defense have anymore questions for the witness?
 
@DocsTheory

8. How did you come to the conclusion that you served 78 hours in prison?
 
8. I skipped about 1d and recall serving 78 hours the screenshots of me serving said 78 hours is something Im currently trying to get access to as im no longer in the dragon law ticket I sent it in
1753984437368.png
 
Does the defense have any follow up questions?
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,
The Defendant has violated court procedure by failing to respond within the required 24-hour timeframe established under Rule 6.6 for witness testimony and cross-examination. The Defence was asked on 1st August, 2025, whether they had follow-up questions and has failed to respond for 4 days, well beyond the procedural requirements.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court hold the Defence in contempt for this procedural violation under Rule 1.4.



Motion


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

The Plaintiff moves for default judgment against the Defendant.

GROUNDS:

1. The Defendant has abandoned their defence by failing to respond to the Court's direct inquiry for 4 consecutive days. This silence demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a waiver of their right to participate in these proceedings.

2. Rule 6.6 establishes clear, mandatory response times of 24 hours for witness testimony and cross-examination matters. The Defendant was directly asked on 1st August, 2025:

ko531 said:
Does the defense have any follow up questions?
Click to expand...
They have violated this requirement by remaining silent for longer than the permitted timeframe.

3. The Defendant's failure to respond has caused substantial prejudice to the Plaintiff by unnecessarily prolonging these proceedings and preventing the orderly administration of justice. The Court and parties should not be held hostage by a Defendant who refuses to engage with the judicial process.

4. The Defendant's willful disregard for court procedures, timelines, and direct court inquiry constitutes contempt under Rule 1.4. This behavior obstructs and interferes with the administration of justice and shows deliberate disrespect for this Court's authority.

5. Granting default judgment causes no unfair prejudice to the Defendant, as they have been afforded full opportunity to participate and have chosen to abandon their defence.

 
ToadKing said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,
The Defendant has violated court procedure by failing to respond within the required 24-hour timeframe established under Rule 6.6 for witness testimony and cross-examination. The Defence was asked on 1st August, 2025, whether they had follow-up questions and has failed to respond for 4 days, well beyond the procedural requirements.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court hold the Defence in contempt for this procedural violation under Rule 1.4.



Motion


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

The Plaintiff moves for default judgment against the Defendant.

GROUNDS:

1. The Defendant has abandoned their defence by failing to respond to the Court's direct inquiry for 4 consecutive days. This silence demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a waiver of their right to participate in these proceedings.

2. Rule 6.6 establishes clear, mandatory response times of 24 hours for witness testimony and cross-examination matters. The Defendant was directly asked on 1st August, 2025:

They have violated this requirement by remaining silent for longer than the permitted timeframe.

3. The Defendant's failure to respond has caused substantial prejudice to the Plaintiff by unnecessarily prolonging these proceedings and preventing the orderly administration of justice. The Court and parties should not be held hostage by a Defendant who refuses to engage with the judicial process.

4. The Defendant's willful disregard for court procedures, timelines, and direct court inquiry constitutes contempt under Rule 1.4. This behavior obstructs and interferes with the administration of justice and shows deliberate disrespect for this Court's authority.

5. Granting default judgment causes no unfair prejudice to the Defendant, as they have been afforded full opportunity to participate and have chosen to abandon their defence.

Click to expand...
OBJECTION - Sustained.

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - Denied.


We will now be moving to closing statements. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing statement
 
Your Honor, the Commonwealth requests a 48 hour extension.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

The facts are clear from the evidence and testimony:

  • Plaintiff was sentenced for "Resisting Arrest" under Section 4.(6) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act
  • Section 4.(6) states the penalty is: "Per Offense: $100 Fine" with no jail time listed
  • DocTheory served at least 78 hours in prison, as he testified
  • The Commonwealth admits this sentence was incorrect
The Standardized Criminal Code Act Section 4.2.(c) states: "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."

Plaintiff's Constitutional rights were violated. Section IV(32)(14) of the Constitution 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." The Plaintiff was forced to serve at least 78 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 violated Plaintiff's rights to life, liberty, and security, and any notion of fundamental justice was discarded.

Plaintiff was never found guilty of any crime that warrants imprisonment. "Resisting Arrest" carries no jail time under the law.

The Commonwealth claims they cannot be held liable because this was a plugin error. However, Staff testified that:
  • The DHS Secretary could have requested DocTheory's early release
  • Staff would have released Plaintiff earlier "if a request from the DHS Secretary had been submitted sooner"
  • No such request was ever made
The Commonwealth had the means to remedy the situation but did not act.

The Commonwealth cites Commonwealth of Redmont v. l3afyy [2023] FCR 44. However, that case involved an officer who saw "Murder x0" on his screen during an arrest. The case was dropped because the officer acted reasonably under confusing circumstances. Here, Plaintiff was sentenced for "Resisting Arrest" - a crime with a clear, unambiguous penalty of "$100 Fine" and no jail time. There is no confusion about what the law requires.

When questioned about statements suggesting he was content to remain jailed, Plaintiff invoked his constitutional right under Section IV(32)(5) not to provide potentially self-incriminating evidence.

Regardless, Section 4.2.(c) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act provides mandatory compensation for unjust imprisonment. The statute does not contain exceptions based on the victim's attitude.

In GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11, this Court awarded substantial damages for an unjust sentence, stating the situation "was definitely negligent at the least, and even further agrees that the act was malicious."

Plaintiff seeks:
  • $420,900 in statutory compensation under Standardized Criminal Code Act § 4.2.(c)
  • $300,000 in punitive damages for constitutional violations
  • $300,000 for loss of enjoyment in Redmont
  • $5,115 in compensatory damages for lost income
  • $307,804 in legal fees under the Legal Damages Act
Plaintiff was imprisoned for a crime that carries no jail time. The Standardized Criminal Code Act requires $50 per minute compensation for such violations. The Commonwealth's defences do not address this core legal requirement.

 
The defense has 72 hours to provide their closing statements
 
Your honor, the defense requests a 48 hour extension
 
dearev said:
Your honor, the defense requests a 48 hour extension
Click to expand...
Your Honour,

The Plaintiff opposes any further delay in these proceedings and respectfully urges this Court to deny the Commonwealth's request for extension.

The Commonwealth has had ample time to prepare its Closing Statement and has provided no adequate justification for this delay. On the 8th of August, the Commonwealth requested and was granted a 48-hour extension. It is now the 13th of August - five days later - and they are requesting yet another extension without specifying any legitimate reason for the delay.

Moreover, the Commonwealth has recently undertaken a massive recruitment drive, hiring six new prosecutors, bringing their total prosecutorial staff to eleven individuals who can potentially work on this case. With such substantial resources at their disposal, there is no legitimate basis for repeated delays.

The Plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to "a speedy and fair trial" under Section 32(9) of the Constitution. Granting unnecessary extensions undermines this fundamental right and prolongs the injustice already suffered by the Plaintiff.

The Commonwealth should not be permitted to further delay justice when they possess more than adequate resources to respond timely, and has already been granted one extension without justification.
 
dearev said:
Your honor, the defense requests a 48 hour extension
Click to expand...
I will be denying this at this time. I made the mistake of saying 72 hours when I should have said 120 hours as you already had an extra 48 hours granted. The current deadline for your closing statements is 8/16 at 9:30 pm EST which should be ample time.
 
Thank you for the clarification your honor
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

As previously established by the arrest record of DocTheory, P-003, the sentence that he received for logging out in handcuffs was 20 minutes. There was not any direct action from a member of the Commonwealth, there was no other crime on record, the application of the law was done by the Democracy Craft bot. It was this action that resulted in the alleged 78 hours testified to have been served by the Plaintiff. The sentencing of DocTheory was completely removed from the actions of any member of the Commonwealth, and was instead the result of a plugin error.

The Plaintiff claims that he went through all appropriate channels and exhausted all means available to him in order to resolve this issue. On the 3rd of March, the Plaintiff opened a DHS ticket and was informed by the DHS secretary that it was outside the power of the Commonwealth to remove people from jail. The DHS has no ability to resolve a staff issue, and with the separation of staff and state, there should be no expectation for the Commonwealth to do anything else. The Commonwealth is not responsible for how long it takes staff to take action on an issue. There was no intentional delay of action from any member of the Commonwealth, and no obvious action that led to the Plaintiff experiencing a longer sentence. In short, there were no adverse actions taken by the Commonwealth that contributed to the Plaintiff's incarceration.

As testified by the staff team, there is no standard procedure for instances of erroneous jailings, and therefore such instances are dealt with on a case by case basis. As there is no standard procedure for these actions, the Plaintiff's assertion that it was the DHS secretary’s duty to inform the staff team of the erroneous jail sentence is outrageous. It is reasonable to assume that if an issue is referred to the staff team, then it is out of the hands of the DHS and will be handled by staff. Should the staff have had any questions related to the unjailing, it was their duty to ask the DHS secretary for clarification, not the duty of the DHS secretary to preemptively clarify. Staff is not beholden to the DHS, and in instances such as this one where a server side glitch occurred, they could have acted without any DHS approval.

The damages requested in this case are also unreasonable. The compensatory damages requested cannot be attributed to the Commonwealth, as the improperly applied sentence was not the result of any action by the Commonwealth. The requested punitive damages are also outrageous. Punitive damages are levied to discourage repeated actions by the defendant, while all evidence points to the fact that the Commonwealth performed its duties to the best of its ability. The damages requested for loss of enjoyment are also without merit. The Plaintiff themselves testified that they were not playing DemocracyCraft during the period of the arrest, stating that “At the time of the arrest I was not playing DC. I quit for a year and only came back for a brief play session during the Christmas event.” How could there be any loss of enjoyment if the Plaintiff themselves was not playing on the server?

The implications of a guilty verdict are staggering. If the Commonwealth can be held liable for mistakes of the staff team, the exposure this would create for the Commonwealth would be tremendous. The Commonwealth does not code plugins, manage the staff team, implement server bug fixes, or take staff actions. Why then should it be held responsible for the failings of those plugins and the staff team?

 
Case is in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Doctheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. 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.
2. These actions by the Commonwealth violated DocTheory’s rights to life, liberty, and security.
3. The DHS failed to request DocTheory be released from prison.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff's sentence was caused by plugin error.
2. The DHS did not have the ability to release the plaintiff from prison.
2. The DHS is not responsible for the amount of time it takes staff to release the plaintiff.

III. THE COURT OPINION
The major issue in this case is not so much was the commonwealth negligent, but to what extent is what happened to the plaintiff was actually caused by the commonwealth. Anything that is caused by a plugin or staff issue, the commonwealth can not be held liable for. So, before this court can rule if the commonwealth was negligent, we must first see which of the two is the root cause at each step.

First, when looking at the initial arrest, the court finds it clear that this was a plugin error. D-001 clearing shows how the plugin was supposed to make the arrest, according to Tech. We can also see when comparing P-003 to P-001 that the jail time does not match. This means that because the arrest was done by the plugin and the length of the sentence was in error, this absolves the commonwealth of fault in this aspect.

The next question the court must examine is what responsibility does the DHS have to resolve this problem? First, the DHS must be alerted to this problem. Justice Westray states in xxTigOlBitties and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16 "You cannot expect the Department of Justice to be the seeing eye of all, and to instantaneously have an awareness of all criminal situations." The DHS does not have a seeing eye of all, and due to the nature of the plaintiff's arrest, it would be unreasonable to expect the DHS to be aware of this error immediatly since no human interaction was involved with the arrest. The Plaintiff also makes claims about their public statements about the sentence, but this does not qualify as properly informing the DHS, as again, they do not have a seeing eye of all watching all forms of communication. This means that any responsiblity the DHS would have in resolving this issue would not start until the plaintiff made their DHS ticket, which was March 3rd, 2025, as seen in P-008. Anything before this cannot be held against the DHS.

After the DHS has been properly alerted, do they have the responsibility to fix this issue? The DHS is responsible for running the prison and the DHS Secretary has the power as seen in D-012 to request the release of an individual for a bug. For these reasons, the DHS does have some responsibility, not a lot. They can't release the person themselves, as seen in D-012. This leaves their responsibility only to inform staff of the issue or request that staff release the person.

The plaintiff, in their closing statements, claims that no request by the DHS was ever made, and staff failed to provide any details about this. However, Staff had to be alerted somehow in order for Doc to be released, and no evidence shows the plaintiff ever contacting staff directly. This leads the court to believe the DHS did reach out to staff at some point. When did the DHS contact staff? The court is left without an answer to this besides sometime between March 3 and March 25, due to no information about such a request being made available. If the request was made on the 25th, then the commonwealth could be held responsible for these 22 days in jail, but if the request was made on the 3rd and staff waited 22 days, the commonwealth would not have been negligent in the slightest. This lack of evidence and information leads the court to side with the defense when it comes to the request, as the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Even though the court acknowledges that what happened to the plaintiff was unfortunate, the court fails to find any reason the commonwealth would be at fault. The plaintiff's sentence was due to a plugin error, the plaintiff failed for months to properly inform the DHS, and finally, the plaintiff failed to prove negligence after the DHS was properly informed.

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

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

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top