Lawsuit: Pending .Farmerkalechip v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 93

[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

 

[Johnes]

Plaintiffs failed to respond within the Court's deadline.

Plaintiffs are hereby given a 24 hour extension sua sponte.

The Court notes that Plaintiff-counsel was online during the deadline and has not requested any extension.

If Plaintiffs do not post an answer to the order above or ask for a extension in the newly given deadline, penalties of contempt will follow along with dismissal of the complaint for being deficient.

Spoiler

 

[farmerkalechip]

Sorry your honor I had some stuff come up. Someone else will take over from here when we find someone. We also ask for a 48 hour extension for us to talk about strategy.

 

[Johnes]

Sorry your honor I had some stuff come up. Spamton_1 will take over from here. We also ask for a 48 hour extension for us to talk about strategy.

There is a pending order from the Court for you to address. The Court will give you, or Spamton_1 a 48 hour extension to address the order but no more extensions will be granted.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

Brief

To The Honorable Magistrate Johnes:

Plaintiff .farmerkalechip has retained Helix Law Group as their counsel:

Spoiler: Proof

.

I would ask that the initial complaint is struck, such that I can provide the newly amended one, which is attached below (since it is not possible for me to edit the initial complaint due to forums permissions).

I'd also like to note that we no longer desire for Spamton_1 to be co-plaintiff in this case, as they have not been reachable by us and upon further research, I don't see a Prosecutor application from them.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

.Farmerkalechip
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

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

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

The information provided in response to the Freedom of Information request identified reasons for the 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 Plaintiff contends that this discrepancy demonstrates inconsistent application of the standards governing the application process, which violates the Constitution, and warrants judicial review.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks appropriate relief, including compensation for the denied application and restoration of the employment opportunities that were denied to them.

I. PARTIES

1. .Farmerkalechip, Plaintiff
2. Commonwealth of Redmont, Defendant

II. FACTS

(All times are CDT, as that is my timezone).

1. On September 22, 2026 at 4:22am, the Plaintiff submitted a Prosecutor application [Exhibit P-001].
2. On September 24, 2026 at 9:33am, the Commonwealth denied the application without explanation [Exhibit P-001].
3. The Plaintiff was provided, only through a Freedom of Information request, with reasons for the denial [Exhibit P-002, P-003].
4. The reasons provided for the Plaintiff's denial was "Lack of overall experience" and "Previous experience of disregard to the law."
5. pepper5980 has disregarded the law in the past [Exhibit P-004].
6. pepper5980 had only been significantly involved in two lawsuits prior to their application, both of which were over 3 years ago [Exhibit P-005].
7. pepper5980's application was approved [Exhibit P-006].
8. Had the Plaintiff's application been approved, they would have obtained the Prosecutor role, been afforded more opportunities for engagement with the server through that role, and received $50/15 minutes UBI instead of the $40 the Plaintiff receives as a Ranger (see Executive Order - Executive Order 62/26 - Government Salaries and Department Categories).
9. The Plaintiff averages 1.675 hours of playtime per day over the last 30 days [Exhibit P-007].
10. Based on this average daily playtime, had the Plaintiff's application been approved, they would have earned their missing pay * hours per day * 4 * days since denial in additional funds, noting the missing pay is $50/15min - $40/15min, which is $10/15min.
11. The Constitution at Part V, Section 35, Subsection 13 grants all citizens, including the Plaintiff, the following right:

(13) Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Constitutional Rights Violation - Equality Under The Law. By approving pepper5980's application which had substantially similar issues as the Plaintiff's, however denying the Plaintiff's application, the Commonwealth violated the Plaintiff's right to equality under the law.
2. Historically, the courts have considered a rights violation a harm on its own, however more recently they have required a tangible harm. In this case, the rights violation of the Commonwealth lowered the Plaintiff's ability to enjoy Redmont and lowered their earning potential, ultimately causing tangible harm.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiffs seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Plaintiff's application be approved and the Prosecutor position bestowed upon the Plaintiff with backpay dating back to September 24, 2026 based on the formula provided in Fact 10; or if the Court finds such a Writ of Mandamus cannot be provided, only the monetary award based on the formula provided in Fact 10.
2. $10,000 in Punitive Damages for grossly harming the Plaintiff's ability to participate in Redmont the way he so desired (this is not technically Loss of Enjoyment as the Plaintiff could not participate as a Prosecutor prior to the application).
3. The minimum amount of required legal fees (30% case value, or $3,000 - whichever is higher) payable to Dartanboy.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/farmerkalechip-prosecutor-application.44794/

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004

Petition: Granted Thread 'pepper5980 - [2023] FCR 29 - Expungement Request'

Mar 3, 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EXPUNGEMENT REQUEST

The petitioner seeks to have their criminal record removed, in accordance with the Expungement Act. They understand that expungement is only possible if it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged, and that the criminal records of government offences cannot be removed.

I. CHARGES
1. Possession of Weapon of Mass Destruction
2. NPC Robbery

II. REASONING
1. When I received this charge, I was a noob that did not know much about DC at all. As is clear from my criminal record, since then I have not committed...

• pepper5980
• Replies: 3
• Forum: Public Petitions

Spoiler: Exhibit P-005

Search results

www.democracycraft.net

Spoiler: Exhibit P-006

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/pepper5980-prosecutor-application.44660/

Spoiler: Exhibit P-007

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 29th day of September 2026

 

[Johnes]

Remanded to Federal Court.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
.Farmerkalechip v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 93

1. Carriage and jurisdiction. Magistrate Johnes remanded this matter to the Federal Court on 30 September 2026 (Post No. 7) and the undersigned takes carriage. The sole claim is a violation of a constitutional right (Constitution, Part V, Section 35(13); Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XI, Section 1), within this Court's original jurisdiction (Constitution, Part II, Section 18(1)(a)). The matter is docketed as [2026] FCR 93.

2. Pleadings and parties. The amended complaint at Post No. 6, filed in answer to the Order to Show Cause of 25 September (Post No. 2), was declared and explained as Rule 3.3 requires and is the operative complaint; Post No. 1 is superseded and remains on the record. Spamton_1 , for whom counsel does not act and no application is identified, is dismissed as a plaintiff under Rules 2.1 and 2.2, without prejudice (Rule 5.16). The Defendant is the Commonwealth of Redmont, of which the Department of Justice is part (Regulations of the Federal Court, Section 2.2.1(b)); the caption is corrected accordingly.

3. Discovery and exhibits. Discovery opens on the filing of the Commonwealth's answer and runs for five days (Rule 4.3) unless both parties consent to end it early (Rule 4.5). During discovery the Plaintiff shall replace Exhibit P-005, a live search link, with a fixed record (Rule 4.6).

@Dartanboy @farmerkalechip

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Writ of Summons

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

The Attorney General (@Nacho) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of .Farmerkalechip v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 93 (Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Section 4).

The Commonwealth shall file its Answer to the Complaint at Post No. 6 within 48 hours of this summons (Rule 6.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures). Failure to file a responsive pleading will result in the action proceeding to inquest (Rule 3.6.1).

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures and the Regulations of the Federal Court.

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.

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Present on behalf of the Commonwealth, Your Honour.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Present on behalf of the Commonwealth, Your Honour.

The Court notes the appearance of @DETECTIVHOLMES for the Commonwealth (Post No. 10).

The period for the Answer to the Complaint runs from the Writ of Summons (Post No. 9) and expires on 2 October 2026 at 12:09 UTC (Rule 6.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures).

With the Answer, counsel shall confirm that they appear as the Attorney General's delegate (Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Section 4(2)) and state their rank under the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VI.

@DETECTIVHOLMES

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

The Court notes the appearance of @DETECTIVHOLMES for the Commonwealth (Post No. 10).

The period for the Answer to the Complaint runs from the Writ of Summons (Post No. 9) and expires on 2 October 2026 at 12:09 UTC (Rule 6.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures).

With the Answer, counsel shall confirm that they appear as the Attorney General's delegate (Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Section 4(2)) and state their rank under the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VI.

@DETECTIVHOLMES

I can confirm that I appear as the Attorney General's delegate and am a duly registered Barrister under the BAR Act. For the purpose of this trial, @Nacho and @OwnedBlock can be considered as my supervisors due to me not taking the Constitutional law legal qualification, which is needed for this trial.

I request a 48h extension to this deadline, I may not be able to submit the answer and it's following filings today depending on my schedule.

 

[Nacho]

I can confirm that I appear as the Attorney General's delegate and am a duly registered Barrister under the BAR Act. For the purpose of this trial, @Nacho and @OwnedBlock can be considered as my supervisors due to me not taking the Constitutional law legal qualification, which is needed for this trial.

I request a 48h extension to this deadline, I may not be able to submit the answer and it's following filings today depending on my schedule.

Your Honor,

if it pleases the court, I would like to confirm this matter placed before the court. I am sending this to save the courts time in a double confirmation status.

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

The Court notes the appearance of @DETECTIVHOLMES for the Commonwealth (Post No. 10).

The period for the Answer to the Complaint runs from the Writ of Summons (Post No. 9) and expires on 2 October 2026 at 12:09 UTC (Rule 6.6 of the Court Rules and Procedures).

With the Answer, counsel shall confirm that they appear as the Attorney General's delegate (Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Section 4(2)) and state their rank under the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VI.

@DETECTIVHOLMES

I apologise for the delays, The defendant is now ready to file their answer, but requests that we enter closed court, as some of the evidence we carry cannot be publicly displayed.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

I can confirm that I appear as the Attorney General's delegate and am a duly registered Barrister under the BAR Act. For the purpose of this trial, @Nacho and @OwnedBlock can be considered as my supervisors due to me not taking the Constitutional law legal qualification, which is needed for this trial.

I request a 48h extension to this deadline, I may not be able to submit the answer and it's following filings today depending on my schedule.

I apologise for the delays, The defendant is now ready to file their answer, but requests that we enter closed court, as some of the evidence we carry cannot be publicly displayed.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MODIFICATION OF ORDERS

1. The Commonwealth asked in time for an extension (Post No. 12) and for closed court (Post No. 14). The extension is GRANTED as of right (Regulations of the Federal Court, Section 4.2), and the Commonwealth is not in default. The request for closed court is GRANTED IN PART on the terms of the Subpoena issued with this Order.

2. Before the Court ruled, the Commonwealth opened a ticket in the Judiciary Discord and placed material relating to this case in it. That ticket was not a court-sanctioned forum (Rule 1.4.1.1), and the Plaintiff has not had access to it (Judicial Standards Act, Part III, Section 2). The Court will add the Plaintiff and counsel so that both sides see the same material. Nothing in the ticket is before the Court except as produced under the Subpoena. The Commonwealth is warned that any further communication about this case outside this thread or a forum the Court designates will be dealt with as contempt (Rules 1.4.2 and 1.4.3).

3. The period for the Answer set in Post No. 11 is modified to forty-eight (48) hours from this Order (Rule 6.6). The Answer shall be filed publicly in this thread in the form required by Rule 3.2, with confirmation that counsel's supervising officer holds the Attorney qualification (Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VIII, Section 2(1)).

4. Discovery opens on the filing of the Answer (Post No. 8, paragraph 3). If no Answer is filed, the action will proceed to inquest (Rule 3.6.1).

@DETECTIVHOLMES @Nacho @Dartanboy @farmerkalechip

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBPOENA

The Commonwealth of Redmont (@DETECTIVHOLMES) is ordered to produce to a closed court, within forty-eight (48) hours of this Subpoena, the evidence it says cannot be published (Classified Materials Act, Section 8(10)), on these terms:

1. The ticket the Commonwealth opened in the Judiciary Discord is designated a court-sanctioned forum for this case (Rule 1.4.1.1). The Court will add the Plaintiff and counsel of record to it, and only the Court, the parties and counsel shall have access. Everything already in the ticket, and anything added, is produced under this Subpoena and shall be labelled D-### (Rule 4.6).

2. The Commonwealth shall post in the case thread an index giving each item's label, a short description and the classification claimed (Classified Materials Act, Section 4).

3. The Plaintiff may object to the treatment of any item within forty-eight (48) hours of the index (Regulations of the Federal Court, Section 4.4). The Court will decide whether each item remains in closed court or is disclosed in open court.

4. Material produced under this Subpoena is JUD-RESTRICTED. The parties and counsel shall keep it in strict confidence and use it only for this case, on pain of contempt.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
.farmerkalechip
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRMS: On September 22, 2026, at 4:22 AM, the Plaintiff submitted a Prosecutor application [Exhibit P-001].
2. AFFIRMS: On September 24, 2026, at 9:33 AM, the Department of Justice denied the application without posting public reasons on the thread [Exhibit P-001].
3. AFFIRMS: The Plaintiff received reasons for the denial following a Freedom of Information request [Exhibits P-002, P-003].
4. AFFIRMS: The reasons provided to the Plaintiff for the denial included "Lack of overall experience" and "Previous experience of disregard to the law" [Exhibits P-002, P-003]. But also states that multiple other reasons were given (see P-002 and P-003)
5. AFFIRMS: Applicant pepper5980's past public record and conduct outside official government discipline were as outlined in Exhibit P-004.
6. AFFIRMS: Applicant pepper5980 was involved in the court cases detailed in Exhibit P-005.
7. AFFIRMS: Applicant pepper5980's Prosecutor application was approved [Exhibit P-006].
8. DENIES: The Commonwealth denies that the Plaintiff was guaranteed or entitled to the Prosecutor role. Submitting an application creates no entitlement to employment, which remain subject to executive selection standards and discretionary hiring authority.
9. AFFIRMS: The Plaintiff logged the playtime recorded in Exhibit P-007 over the specified 30-day period.
10. DENIES: The Commonwealth denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to backpay or monetary damages based on estimated playtime, as hiring is discretionary and no statutory or constitutional violation occurred.
11. AFFIRMS that the Constitution at Part V, Section 35, Subsection 13 guarantees equality under the law and protection against unfair discrimination.

II. DEFENCES
1. Executive Hiring Discretion and Merit-Based Qualifications Under executive standards and departmental hiring mandates, the Department of Justice retains administrative discretion to evaluate and select qualified candidates for legal positions. While candidate pepper5980 demonstrated satisfactory performance in prior cases, the Plaintiff’s limited record includes unsuccessful court filings, such as .Farmerkalechip v. GnomeCorp DCR 110. Selecting a candidate with proven legal execution over an applicant with an unsuccessful record represents an objective, skill-based hiring decision.

2. Criminal Record Expungement vs. Active Administrative Misconduct and Abuse, formal criminal expungements legally clear a citizen's past offences. Candidate pepper5980’s prior summary offences occurred 3 years ago and were legally expunged, making them improper grounds for employment disqualification. Conversely, the Plaintiff has an active, record of severe administrative discipline, including termination from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for cuff abuse. (see D-001 to D-009) Plaintiff has also been submitting false statements within official government support tickets, but was never charged due to the DOJ lacking the resources to do so. Disqualifying an applicant who was terminated from the DHS for abuse of power is character screening, not unfair discrimination.

3. Workplace Harmony, the Plaintiff engaged in extensive hostility and harassment directed at DHS leadership following termination (D-001 to D-009), including aggressive arguments within private channels. While the Department of Justice possessed prior awareness of this conduct, formal documentary proof was just received. Rejecting an applicant due to documented leadership harassment and disruption shows the exercise of executive management discretion to protect the DOJ’s standards.
It should also be noted, that during the writing of this answer, the Plaintiff was issued a long deport by staff for “Harassment” (see D-014 & 16)
4. Quality of work, The Plaintiff had previously submitted multiple applications, all using Artificial Intelligence, and it is clear that they havent stopped, as the initial filing of this case was marked down by staff as AI. (see P-014) The DOJ has to uphold their prosecutors to very high standards, who must respect the court, and are required to submit legitimate filings.

4. No unfair discrimination, Section 35, Subsection 13 of the Constitution protects citizens against unfair discrimination based on protected classes, such as political belief or social status. Neutral screening based on objective, job-related criteria, including past litigation performance, active administrative misconduct, abuse of authority, and workplace conduct, does not constitute unfair discrimination.
Witnesses:
paper_cute
lukeyyyMC_

Evidence: CLOSED COURT
D-001, Department of Homeland Security leadership notifying the plaintiff of his termination.
D-002, Plaintiff attempts to argue with DHS leadership
D-003, Arguments continue, plaintiff pings Multi
D-004, Plaintiff pings leadership
D-005, Further arguments which are shut down
D-006, Plaintiff begins to rant and blame Bedrock's capabilities
D-007, Plaintiff is told that other officers on Bedrock never faced the same issue
D-008, Plaintiff moves to blame everything as a PlayStation bug.
D-009, Picture of the initial vote to terminate plaintiff.
D-010, a video submitted by the DHS showing that Bedrock faces no issue
D-011, a reshoot of the previous video.
D-012, The short deport issued by staff
D-013, The long deport issued
D-014, Initial complaint marked as AI by staff
D-015, Another picture of the long deport in Minecraft

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 8th day of October 2026

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION - COUNTERCLAIM

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

.farmerkalechip
Counter-Defendant

COMPLAINT,
The Counter-Plaintiff complains against the Counter-Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE COUNTER-PLAINTIFF:
The Counter-Defendant filed a frivolous lawsuit against the Department of Justice, seeking monetary damages for being denied a discretionary appointment. The Counter-Defendant filed this action despite having been terminated from the Department of Homeland Security for abuse of authority and engaging in post-termination leadership harassment. Initiating a groundless lawsuit while concealing active administrative discipline constitutes an Abuse of Legal Process under Part XII, Section 2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. The Counter-Plaintiff brings this counterclaim to recover statutory penalties and the actual legal expenses incurred in defending against this bad-faith filing.

I. PARTIES

1. The Commonwealth of Redmont, Counter-Plaintiff.
2. .farmerkalechip, Counter-Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On September 22, 2026, the Counter-Defendant submitted an application for the position of Prosecutor within the Department of Justice.
2. On September 24, 2026, the Department of Justice exercised its lawful administrative discretion and denied the application based on objective qualifications and conduct standards.
3. The Counter-Defendant possessed full personal knowledge that their prior employment with the Department of Homeland Security was terminated for abuse of authority.
4. The Counter-Defendant possessed full personal knowledge that following their termination, they engaged in persistent harassment of DHS leadership and disruptive conduct within private government channels.
5. On September 25, 2026, the Counter-Defendant initiated the underlying lawsuit . Farmerkalechip v. Commonwealth of Redmont FCR 93, demanding monetary compensation and back pay based on estimated playtime.
6. The Counter-Defendant initiated and pursued this legal claim without a reasonable basis in law or fact, in bad faith, and for the improper purpose of harassing government officials, extracting unearned monetary awards, and improperly coercing executive hiring decisions.
7. As a direct result of this bad faith filing, the Counter-Plaintiff has suffered demonstrable harm in the form of wasted administrative resources, time, and specific legal expenses incurred in defending meritless litigation.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Abuse of Legal Process Under Part XII, Section 2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, a person commits Abuse of Legal Process when they initiate or pursue a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis, and that claim causes harm to the defendant. The Counter-Defendant's initiation of a lawsuit grounded on discretionary hiring decisions, while concealing active administrative discipline for abuse of authority and leadership harassment, establishes bad faith and lack of reasonable basis. This frivolous suit has directly harmed the Counter-Plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Find the Counter-Defendant in violation of Abuse of Legal Process under Part XII, Section 2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. Impose the statutory remedy of 100 Civil Penalty Units against the Counter-Defendant.
3. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper, and order any charges deemed necessary.

V. EVIDENCE

The same evidence used for the previous case may be reused.

VI. WITNESSES

1. paper_cute
2. lukeyyyMC_

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 8th day of October 2026

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MODIFICATION OF ORDERS

1. The Commonwealth asked in time for an extension (Post No. 12) and for closed court (Post No. 14). The extension is GRANTED as of right (Regulations of the Federal Court, Section 4.2), and the Commonwealth is not in default. The request for closed court is GRANTED IN PART on the terms of the Subpoena issued with this Order.

2. Before the Court ruled, the Commonwealth opened a ticket in the Judiciary Discord and placed material relating to this case in it. That ticket was not a court-sanctioned forum (Rule 1.4.1.1), and the Plaintiff has not had access to it (Judicial Standards Act, Part III, Section 2). The Court will add the Plaintiff and counsel so that both sides see the same material. Nothing in the ticket is before the Court except as produced under the Subpoena. The Commonwealth is warned that any further communication about this case outside this thread or a forum the Court designates will be dealt with as contempt (Rules 1.4.2 and 1.4.3).

3. The period for the Answer set in Post No. 11 is modified to forty-eight (48) hours from this Order (Rule 6.6). The Answer shall be filed publicly in this thread in the form required by Rule 3.2, with confirmation that counsel's supervising officer holds the Attorney qualification (Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VIII, Section 2(1)).

4. Discovery opens on the filing of the Answer (Post No. 8, paragraph 3). If no Answer is filed, the action will proceed to inquest (Rule 3.6.1).

@DETECTIVHOLMES @Nacho @Dartanboy @farmerkalechip

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

I can confirm that Deputy Attorney General Nacho is qualified as an attorney.

Spoiler: Proof

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant moves to dismiss the plaintiff's initial filing. The plaintiff has been long-deported (see D-013 and D-015), and deported players have no rights in Redmont (see SCR 2 [2025]) and may not bring disputes to Redmont's courts.

 

[DETECTIVHOLMES]

Motion

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In addition to the above, counter-plaintiff requests summary judgment on the counterclaim, as the defendant has been deported (D-013 & D-015), Summary judgment may be used when a case's defendant has been deported. (see SCR 8 [2025])

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant moves to dismiss the plaintiff's initial filing. The plaintiff has been long-deported (see D-013 and D-015), and deported players have no rights in Redmont (see SCR 2 [2025]) and may not bring disputes to Redmont's courts.

Regrettably, this appears to be true. I have no way to oppose this motion.

 

[Dartanboy]

If you would allow a response to the countersuit, however, that would be appreciated, your Honor.