.Farmerkalechip v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR

[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.