Lawsuit: Pending .Farmerkalechip v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 175

[farmerkalechip]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

.Farmerkalechip, Spamton_1
Plaintiffs

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFFS


The Plaintiffs bring this action concerning the denial of their applications for employment/positions within the Commonwealth of Redmont.

The Plaintiffs submitted an application for the position and was subsequently denied. Following the denial, the Plaintiffs sought information through a Freedom of Information request concerning the reasons their applications were denied.

The information provided in response to the Freedom of Information request identified reasons for a Plaintiff's denials that were also applicable to the application of pepper5980. Despite having the same or substantially similar issues identified in the reasons for denial, pepper5980's application was approved.

The Plaintiffs contend that this discrepancy demonstrates inconsistent application of the standards governing the application process and warrants judicial review.

The Plaintiffs therefore seek appropriate relief, including compensation for the denied applications and restoration of the employment opportunities that were denied to them.


I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiffs are the individuals whose applications were denied by the Defendant.
2. pepper5980 is relevant to this action as an applicant whose application was approved despite allegedly having issues substantially similar to those identified in the Plaintiffs' applications.
3. The Defendant is the Department of Justice responsible for reviewing and deciding the applications at issue in this case.

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiffs submitted applications for positions within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Plaintiffs, applications were denied.
3. A Plaintiff was provided, through a Freedom of Information request, with reasons for the denial.
4. The reasons provided for the Plaintiff's denials included issues that were also present in the application of pepper5980.
5. Despite those allegedly similar issues, pepper5980's application was approved.
6. The Plaintiffs believe that the differing outcomes demonstrate that the applicable application standards were not applied consistently.
7. The Plaintiffs would have received the "prosecutor" position had their application been approved.
8. The Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of employment opportunities and associated compensation as a result of the denials.
9. The Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain judicial review of the inconsistent application of the Commonwealth's application standards and to obtain appropriate relief.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. A Plaintiff incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
2. The Defendant's inconsistent treatment of substantially similar applications constitutes an improper and inconsistent application of the standards governing the application process.
3. The approval of pepper5980's application despite the presence of issues identified as grounds for denying the Plaintiffs' applications raises a legitimate question as to whether the application standards were applied uniformly.
4. To the extent that Commonwealth law, administrative rules, employment regulations, or other applicable law requires applications to be evaluated consistently and according to established standards, the Defendant's actions violated those requirements.
5. The Plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate relief for the loss of employment opportunities resulting from the challenged decisions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiffs seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $120,000 in total monetary damages, divided equally among all plaintiffs whose applications were denied.
2. The positions for which the plaintiffs applied, or equivalent positions if the original positions are no longer available.
3. Any additional damages or compensation that the Court determines are appropriate.
4. Any other relief the Court considers just and proper.

EVIDENCE

The Plaintiffs intend to provide, where applicable:

1. Copies of the original applications.
2. Copies of the denial notices.
3. The Freedom of Information response identifying the reasons for a denial.

WITNESSES

1. The Plaintiffs.
2. pepper5980, concerning the approval of their application and the issues present in their application.
3. Any Commonwealth officials involved in reviewing or approving the applications.
4. Any other individuals possessing relevant information concerning the application process found during discovery.

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 25th day of September 2026

 

[Johnes]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs .Farmerkalechip, and Spamton_1 approach this Court seeking relief for an alleged harm caused by the Commonwealth of Redmont due to their application for State Prosecutor being denied by the Department of Justice.

The Court is concerned, that the complaint has certain deficiencies Plaintiffs must address before the trial can continue. The Court will look at the Plaintiffs in the most favorable light when considering its ruling on this OSC.

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, and amend accordingly, within 48 hours, the following:

1. Labeling of evidence, pursuant to Rule 4.6 of the Court Rules & Procedures;
2. Citation of any concrete law, precedent, rule or regulation which the complaint is basing its claim on;
3. Categorization and types of relief requested, and its basis in law;
4. Standing, as governed by Rule 2.1.

So ordered,
Magistrate Johnes