Lawsuit: In Session Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 69

[CoolChacha97]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION


Galactic Empire of Redmont (Represented by MZLD law)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
This is a case of major constitutional significance, the DCT is attempting to evict 4 different properties for reasons if allowed that would destroy the core constitutional principle of freedom of political communication and the principle of Res judicata. The plot of c279 is a plot that holds special significance in this case. Back in 2023, the DCT tried to evict the plot for "basic materials" in the court opinion the judge wrote. "According to the DCT, limited basic materials are blocks such as dirt, cobblestone, and anything similar. A reasonable person would not put quartz in the same category as dirt and cobblestone." Now, over 2 years later, the same plot with the same buildings is being evicted for basically the same reasons. This is a plain violation of the policy of Res judicata. Its the same property, with the same owner, being evicted for the same reasons by the same people. When it comes to the 4 plots of c226, c454, c607, and c279 to spread a genuine and legitimate political message, the GER, being a registered political party for over 2 years, has run numerous political candidates in that time. To showcase the long political history of the GER a discord link to their server has been provided in evidence. The builds are a form of political communication and, as such, cannot be restricted. There has been 1 prior case with similar fact patterns to the 1 of today in the case of TimeDefender v. The Department of Construction and Transport [2021]. In this case, the district court ruled that a tree blocking a billboard was not a violation of our Constitution. But the facts are different today; we do not allege that an object is in the way of one of our buildings. We allege that the DCT is specifically trying to evict plots because they look like "eyesores." But evicting these plots would restrict the freedom of the GER to communicate, a violation of the constitution. In the latter case, it was about forcing the government to do something; in this case, it is about forcing the government not to do something.

I. Parties
1. Galactic Empire of Redmont
2. Department of construction and transportation
II. FACTS
1. On July 1st, eviction reports were posted by Dearey, an inspector for the DCT for the properties c364, c607, c226, c279, and c454
2. There are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore
3. The reasons are being a box or pyramid shape, few or no windows, property clutter, zoning mismatch, being floated or unsupported, clashing materials or colors, unrealistic interior, and "Other visual concerns agreed on by Inspector."
4. The evictions of plots c364 have since been dropped
5. In February 2023, the DCT tried evicting c279 in The Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27, it failed and was not allowed to evict the plot.
6. The plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message
7. The GER has run numerous political candidates in DC
8. The GER is a registered political party in Redmont themed around the irl media franchise of Star Wars
9. All of the builds with eviction notices include Star Wars specific builds and GER banners/signs

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The legal principle of Res judicata applies in the case of c279
2. The Constitution of Redmont includes "Freedom of Political Communication." The buildings of the GER are made in such a way to spread a political message, and the government is trying to restrict this message, violating the constitution
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The halting of all current evictions against plot c607, c226, c279, c454
2. 1 dollar in nominal damages
3. Whatever legal fees the court deems appropriate

V. Evidence
P-001 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c607-jul-29-2025.26874/
P-002 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c226-jul-22-2025.26875/
P-003 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c279-jul-22-2025.26876/
P-004 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c454-jul-24-2025.26789/
P-005 Join the The Galactic Empire of Redmont Discord Server!
P-006 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/inspector-guide.16/
P-007 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/evictions-policy.26813/
P-008 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/yeet_boy-galactic-empire-of-redmont-ger.16048/
P-009
P-010
P-011
P-012
P-13
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 24th day of July 2025
Proof of rep

Witnesses:
FTLCEO
xendeavour
Vroomba
yeet_boy
aligoth

 

[CoolChacha97]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint as follows:
Was able to zip the schematic files, they are here now

 

[CoolChacha97]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to this lawsuit coming shortly before the eviction date, we request the DCT be enjoined (prevented) from evicting the plots in this case (c454, c279, c226, c607) for the duration of this case

 

[End]

Requesting the court hears the Department's response prior to considering the emergency injunction.

 

[ameslap]

Requesting the court hears the Department's response prior to considering the emergency injunction.

This is a warning to not speak in court until summoned, that being said, you may respond to the EI within the next 24 hours.

Writ of Summons

@gribble19 or their representative is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 69.

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.

 

[End]

The Department carries out the eviction process in a non-partisan fashion, and any reference that suggests otherwise is untrue.

The plaintiff had seven of their properties reported recently, and of those seven, all were reviewed by the Secretary. One was placed on hold pending more information from the Inspector, two were quashed, and four were upheld.

It is understood that these properties are political in nature, and as demonstrated, they have gone through higher scrutiny which has not been replicated in any recent auctions.

When the plaintiff challenged the DCT’s reports, the Secretary personally reviewed the reports and provided additional feedback for correction, and in some cases, extended the eviction window without application. The Department has been incredibly generous and fair to the plaintiff in wanting to see the building reports resolved by the owner.

The Property Standards Act provides that the Department of Construction and Transportation has the express jurisdiction to create regulations and to evict in accordance with these regulations.

4 - Jurisdiction
(1) The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.

Since [2023] FCR 27, the DCT has updated it’s eviction policy. Quartz is now specifically named and limited blocks is included in the eviction reasons. The court interprets the DCT Policy, they made a determination in 2023 on what the policy meant, and since it has been updated. Res Judica does not apply here.

You have a freedom to communicate politically and the DCT is not inhibiting that, in fact, we have tried to enable the plaintiff to stay on their plot in the best way we can and we have abided by all notice requirements to the owner of the plot.

The notion that you can build whatever you want outside the thematic style of the city and justify it as political communication is a verdict waiting to be abused.

Medieval builds are not allowed in the city as they are against the thematic requirements. Creating a Medieval political party does not absolve your responsibility to follow the laws and regulations in the name of political communication.

For these reasons, we request that the Court does not accept the Emergency Injunction.

 

[Franciscus]

The Department carries out the eviction process in a non-partisan fashion, and any reference that suggests otherwise is untrue.

The plaintiff had seven of their properties reported recently, and of those seven, all were reviewed by the Secretary. One was placed on hold pending more information from the Inspector, two were quashed, and four were upheld.

It is understood that these properties are political in nature, and as demonstrated, they have gone through higher scrutiny which has not been replicated in any recent auctions.

When the plaintiff challenged the DCT’s reports, the Secretary personally reviewed the reports and provided additional feedback for correction, and in some cases, extended the eviction window without application. The Department has been incredibly generous and fair to the plaintiff in wanting to see the building reports resolved by the owner.

The Property Standards Act provides that the Department of Construction and Transportation has the express jurisdiction to create regulations and to evict in accordance with these regulations.

4 - Jurisdiction
(1) The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.

Since [2023] FCR 27, the DCT has updated it’s eviction policy. Quartz is now specifically named and limited blocks is included in the eviction reasons. The court interprets the DCT Policy, they made a determination in 2023 on what the policy meant, and since it has been updated. Res Judica does not apply here.

You have a freedom to communicate politically and the DCT is not inhibiting that, in fact, we have tried to enable the plaintiff to stay on their plot in the best way we can and we have abided by all notice requirements to the owner of the plot.

The notion that you can build whatever you want outside the thematic style of the city and justify it as political communication is a verdict waiting to be abused.

Medieval builds are not allowed in the city as they are against the thematic requirements. Creating a Medieval political party does not absolve your responsibility to follow the laws and regulations in the name of political communication.

For these reasons, we request that the Court does not accept the Emergency Injunction.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

It is the understanding of the Plaintiff that xEndeavour is likely not an employee of the Department of Justice who has been authorized by the Attorney General to represent the Commonwealth in this case. Indeed, it appears that the DCT secretary is not even a member of the DoJ discord server, having left it several days ago (see: Exhibit P-ND1), and we are not aware of any agreement for non-DoJ members to represent the Commonwealth.

While xEndeavour may be called as a witness by the Plaintiff and/or Defense, the time for statements by witnesses are not now. The Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour‘s statement be stricken unless evidence can be furnished that the DCT Secretary’s statement to the court was authorized as a representation of the Commonwealth at the time of its publication.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-ND1

 

[End]

Im responding on behalf of the department which is currently the named party in the case and to which there is an adverse action against being ruled on.

I don’t claim to represent the DOJ, the EI is against me and my operations.

 

[End]

Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation

 

[Franciscus]

Im responding on behalf of the department which is currently the named party in the case and to which there is an adverse action against being ruled on.

I don’t claim to represent the DOJ, the EI is against me and my operations.

This is a warning to not speak in court until summoned, that being said, you may respond to the EI within the next 24 hours.

Writ of Summons

@gribble19 or their representative is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 69.

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.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Again, your honor:

The above writ of summons was issued to “@gribble19 or their representative”. As xEndeavour has confirmed that he “do[es]n’t claim to represent the DOJ”, it is clear that xEndeavour is not the representative of the Attorney General in this case, and that these additional statements should be stricken as spoken out-of-turn.

Even though there was a prior warning to xEndeavour for speaking out-of-turn, this appears to have been a good-faith mistake. For this reason, I ask that xEndeavour not be held in contempt of court on this issue, but that a simple clarifying ruling be issued.

 

[ameslap]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to this lawsuit coming shortly before the eviction date, we request the DCT be enjoined (prevented) from evicting the plots in this case (c454, c279, c226, c607) for the duration of this case

The Department carries out the eviction process in a non-partisan fashion, and any reference that suggests otherwise is untrue.

The plaintiff had seven of their properties reported recently, and of those seven, all were reviewed by the Secretary. One was placed on hold pending more information from the Inspector, two were quashed, and four were upheld.

It is understood that these properties are political in nature, and as demonstrated, they have gone through higher scrutiny which has not been replicated in any recent auctions.

When the plaintiff challenged the DCT’s reports, the Secretary personally reviewed the reports and provided additional feedback for correction, and in some cases, extended the eviction window without application. The Department has been incredibly generous and fair to the plaintiff in wanting to see the building reports resolved by the owner.

The Property Standards Act provides that the Department of Construction and Transportation has the express jurisdiction to create regulations and to evict in accordance with these regulations.

4 - Jurisdiction
(1) The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.

Since [2023] FCR 27, the DCT has updated it’s eviction policy. Quartz is now specifically named and limited blocks is included in the eviction reasons. The court interprets the DCT Policy, they made a determination in 2023 on what the policy meant, and since it has been updated. Res Judica does not apply here.

You have a freedom to communicate politically and the DCT is not inhibiting that, in fact, we have tried to enable the plaintiff to stay on their plot in the best way we can and we have abided by all notice requirements to the owner of the plot.

The notion that you can build whatever you want outside the thematic style of the city and justify it as political communication is a verdict waiting to be abused.

Medieval builds are not allowed in the city as they are against the thematic requirements. Creating a Medieval political party does not absolve your responsibility to follow the laws and regulations in the name of political communication.

For these reasons, we request that the Court does not accept the Emergency Injunction.

I will be granting the Emergency Injunction. The purpose of an EI is to prevent harm, and by following through with an eviction, selling, and potential demolition of 4 buildings could be harmful in the event that the Plaintiff is found to be victorious in this case. The Government is hereby enjoined from evicting plots c454, c279, c226, c607 for the duration of this case.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

It is the understanding of the Plaintiff that xEndeavour is likely not an employee of the Department of Justice who has been authorized by the Attorney General to represent the Commonwealth in this case. Indeed, it appears that the DCT secretary is not even a member of the DoJ discord server, having left it several days ago (see: Exhibit P-ND1), and we are not aware of any agreement for non-DoJ members to represent the Commonwealth.

While xEndeavour may be called as a witness by the Plaintiff and/or Defense, the time for statements by witnesses are not now. The Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour‘s statement be stricken unless evidence can be furnished that the DCT Secretary’s statement to the court was authorized as a representation of the Commonwealth at the time of its publication.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-ND1

View attachment 57577

This is hereby denied. In this single instance I had approved the Secretary to respond to the EI as I wanted to hear an argument against the ruling in favor of the EI.

Im responding on behalf of the department which is currently the named party in the case and to which there is an adverse action against being ruled on.

I don’t claim to represent the DOJ, the EI is against me and my operations.

Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Again, your honor:

The above writ of summons was issued to “@gribble19 or their representative”. As xEndeavour has confirmed that he “do[es]n’t claim to represent the DOJ”, it is clear that xEndeavour is not the representative of the Attorney General in this case, and that these additional statements should be stricken as spoken out-of-turn.

Even though there was a prior warning to xEndeavour for speaking out-of-turn, this appears to have been a good-faith mistake. For this reason, I ask that xEndeavour not be held in contempt of court on this issue, but that a simple clarifying ruling be issued.

Objection sustained. I allowed the Secretary to speak one time only in regards to the Emergency Injunction, no other instance was allowed and as such those comments shall be struck from the record. Let it be further clarified that the Executive Standards Act gives the Department of Justice the power to "(a) Defending the national legal interest."

It does not matter if a department was named as the main defendant, they are apart of the national government and as such the DoJ is empowered to defend them. At the request of the Plaintiff's counsel, I will not be charging End with Contempt but will do so if they continue to speak without written approval from the Attorney General.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor, Plaintiff has not alleged that they suffered any injury in their complaint, nor have they shown how they have been affected by an application of the law. In order to pursue a cause, this is a requirement to be shown to the court (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 2.1). This case is about an injury that Plaintiff expects they may suffer in the future, which does not cover the aforementioned requirement.

The Defendant respectfully requests this case be dismissed under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

Your Honor, Plaintiff has not alleged that they suffered any injury in their complaint, nor have they shown how they have been affected by an application of the law. In order to pursue a cause, this is a requirement to be shown to the court (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 2.1). This case is about an injury that Plaintiff expects they may suffer in the future, which does not cover the aforementioned requirement.

The Defendant respectfully requests this case be dismissed under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

Motion Denied. Once the report was filed the law has officially been applied to the Plaintiff. Additionally, in both cases that the Plaintiff cited in their complaint, it shows that the reports alone are enough for standing.

The Defendant has 48 to file a response to the complaint.

 

[CasualGreyKnight]

Your honor, permission to file an amicus brief regarding the relationship between current DCT secretary xEndeavor and the GER, as well as the WPR (a party of which the evicting inspector is apart of) and the GER.

 

[gribble19]

Your honor, permission to file an amicus brief regarding the relationship between current DCT secretary xEndeavor and the GER, as well as the WPR (a party of which the evicting inspector is apart of) and the GER.

Objection

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

Your Honor,
In Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42, #3 the plaintiff's counsel argued that: "An amicus brief is a legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof." The Defendant agrees with this and argues the same here. The Plaintiff of this case is the Galactic Empire of Redmont, a political party of which CasualGreyKnight is a member (See D-001, D-002). As a member of the political party that is the Plaintiff in this case, CasualGreyKnight is a direct party to this case and requesting to file an amicus brief is thus inappropriate and a violation of court procedure. Defendant respectfully requests the court deny CasualGreyKnight's request to file an amicus brief.

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
In Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42, #3 the plaintiff's counsel argued that: "An amicus brief is a legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof." The Defendant agrees with this and argues the same here. The Plaintiff of this case is the Galactic Empire of Redmont, a political party of which CasualGreyKnight is a member (See D-001, D-002). As a member of the political party that is the Plaintiff in this case, CasualGreyKnight is a direct party to this case and requesting to file an amicus brief is thus inappropriate and a violation of court procedure. Defendant respectfully requests the court deny CasualGreyKnight's request to file an amicus brief.

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 57643

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 57644

Sustained.

Your honor, permission to file an amicus brief regarding the relationship between current DCT secretary xEndeavor and the GER, as well as the WPR (a party of which the evicting inspector is apart of) and the GER.

As a member of the GER you are a direct party to this case and as such cannot file a amicus brief.

 

[gribble19]

II. FACTS
2. There are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore
3. The reasons are being a box or pyramid shape, few or no windows, property clutter, zoning mismatch, being floated or unsupported, clashing materials or colors, unrealistic interior, and "Other visual concerns agreed on by Inspector."

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Perjury occurs when someone knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law (Criminal Code Act, III.1.(a)).

Plaintiff in their Complaint states under II.2 that there are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore, and then under II.3 that the list of possible reasons is as follows: "being a box or pyramid shape, few or no windows, property clutter, zoning mismatch, being floated or unsupported, clashing materials or colors, unrealistic interior, and "Other visual concerns agreed on by Inspector." This is however a list of 8 reasons as opposed to 10 and is therefore clearly a false statement. It is also clear that this statement was made knowingly, as the Plaintiff stated immediately before that there were 10 possible reasons. Plaintiff thus knew that two reasons were missing from this list.

The two reasons that are missing from II.3 of the Complaint are "Basic matierals (e.g. dirt, cobble; use of limited blocks i.e. building a structure out of just quartz)" and "Plain stone exterior terrain" (See D-003). What makes this act of perjury extra harmful, is that these two reasons are reasons that were explicitly mentioned by the Secretary of the DCT in two of the eviction threads which are the subject of this case. In the thread regarding the eviction report for plot c607, the Secretary of the DCT stated that "This property . . . consists of a stone-based floor."(See D-004). In the thread regarding the eviction report for c279, the Secretary of the DCT stated that "This property was originally reported for the usage of simple materials such as quartz makes the build look untextured and finished" (See D-005). Trying to hide these reasons would potentially allow Plaintiff to falsely argue that the eviction reports were not in line with the stated department policies, as applicable reasons were conveniently left out.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury. (Criminal Code Act, III.1)

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

 

[gribble19]

Witnesses:
FTLCEO
Vroomba
aligoth

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Defendant does not see how testimony of FTLCEO, Vroomba or aligoth is related to the case at hand in any way and Plaintiff has not given any explanation or reasoning for the inclusion of the aforementioned witnesses in their witness list.

 

[gribble19]

V. Evidence
1. Schematic files of the plots c607, c226, c279 and c454 will be been provided to the defendant and can be provided to the court if needed.
2. Eviction posts, c607, c226, c279, c454, c364 is archived and cannot be viewed.
3. GER discord
4. Inspector policy
5. Eviction policy
6. Political party registration

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE, BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,
The evidence provided by the Plaintiff has not been appropriately labeled in line with Rule 4.6 of our Court Rules and Procedures, which will make it incredibly difficult to easily refer to the pieces of evidence throughout the course of this case.

The Defendant respectfully request the Plaintiff be made to properly label and format their evidence in line with established court procedures.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

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

Galactic Empire of Redmont (Represented by MZLD law)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that eviction reports for the properties c364, c607, c226 and c279 were posted by an inspector for the DCT on July 1st.
2. The Defendant DENIES that the actions under I.1 were taken by "Dearey".
3. The Defendant DENIES that an eviction report for the property C454 was posted by an inspector for the DCT On July 1st.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that there are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore.
5. The Defendant DENIES that the reasons are those listed under II.3 of Plaintiff's complaint as two reasons are missing from this list.
6. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the eviction report of plot c364 has been "dropped", noting that the Defendant understands "dropped" to mean withdrawn and marked solved.
7. The Defendant DENIES that the DCT tried evicting c279 in [2023] FCR 27, it failed and was not allowed to evict the plot. The DCT does did not attempt to evict plot c279 through [203] FCR 27. The lawsuit in question was filed against the commonwealth in response to an eviction report made against plot c279.
8. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of the statement that the plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message, and therefore DENIES this.
9. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the GER has ran numerous political candidates in DC.
10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the GER is a registered political party in Redmont.
11. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of the statement that the GER is themed around the irl media franchise of Star Wars, and therefore DENIES this.
12. The Defendant DENIES that all builds with eviction notices include Star Wars specific builds and GER banners/signs. Many examples of plots with eviction notices that do not include Star Wars specific builds and GER banners or signs can be found in the forum folder containing all active eviction reports.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff completely misunderstood and misused the principle of Res Judicata. Their first claim for relief is not a valid claim for relief.
2. Evicting a plot that happens to contain political communication does not violate the constitutional right to Freedom of Political Communication. As you would still be able to place political communication on any plots that do follow all laws and policies and are not evicted, you are still able to freely politically communicate. Furthermore there are also other ways to communicate politically that do not necessitate the ownership of a plot.

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 22nd day of July 2025

 

[gribble19]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION


Galactic Empire of Redmont (Represented by MZLD law)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
This is a case of major constitutional significance, the DCT is attempting to evict 4 different properties for reasons if allowed that would destroy the core constitutional principle of freedom of political communication and the principle of Res judicata. The plot of c279 is a plot that holds special significance in this case. Back in 2023, the DCT tried to evict the plot for "basic materials" in the court opinion the judge wrote. "According to the DCT, limited basic materials are blocks such as dirt, cobblestone, and anything similar. A reasonable person would not put quartz in the same category as dirt and cobblestone." Now, over 2 years later, the same plot with the same buildings is being evicted for basically the same reasons. This is a plain violation of the policy of Res judicata. Its the same property, with the same owner, being evicted for the same reasons by the same people. When it comes to the 4 plots of c226, c454, c607, and c279 to spread a genuine and legitimate political message, the GER, being a registered political party for over 2 years, has run numerous political candidates in that time. To showcase the long political history of the GER a discord link to their server has been provided in evidence. The builds are a form of political communication and, as such, cannot be restricted. There has been 1 prior case with similar fact patterns to the 1 of today in the case of TimeDefender v. The Department of Construction and Transport [2021]. In this case, the district court ruled that a tree blocking a billboard was not a violation of our Constitution. But the facts are different today; we do not allege that an object is in the way of one of our buildings. We allege that the DCT is specifically trying to evict plots because they look like "eyesores." But evicting these plots would restrict the freedom of the GER to communicate, a violation of the constitution. In the latter case, it was about forcing the government to do something; in this case, it is about forcing the government not to do something.

I. Parties
1. Galactic Empire of Redmont
2. Department of construction and transportation
II. FACTS
1. On July 1st, eviction reports were posted by Dearey, an inspector for the DCT for the properties c364, c607, c226, c279, and c454
2. There are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore
3. The reasons are being a box or pyramid shape, few or no windows, property clutter, zoning mismatch, being floated or unsupported, clashing materials or colors, unrealistic interior, and "Other visual concerns agreed on by Inspector."
4. The evictions of plots c364 have since been dropped
5. In February 2023, the DCT tried evicting c279 in The Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27, it failed and was not allowed to evict the plot.
6. The plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message
7. The GER has run numerous political candidates in DC
8. The GER is a registered political party in Redmont themed around the irl media franchise of Star Wars
9. All of the builds with eviction notices include Star Wars specific builds and GER banners/signs

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The legal principle of Res judicata applies in the case of c279
2. The Constitution of Redmont includes "Freedom of Political Communication." The buildings of the GER are made in such a way to spread a political message, and the government is trying to restrict this message, violating the constitution
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The halting of all current evictions against plot c607, c226, c279, c454
2. 1 dollar in nominal damages
3. Whatever legal fees the court deems appropriate

V. Evidence
1. Schematic files of the plots c607, c226, c279 and c454 will be been provided to the defendant and can be provided to the court if needed.
2. Eviction posts, c607, c226, c279, c454, c364 is archived and cannot be viewed.
3. GER discord
4. Inspector policy
5. Eviction policy
6. Political party registration
Proof of rep
View attachment 57532


Witnesses:
FTLCEO
xendeavour
Vroomba
yeet_boy
aligoth

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain the sections:
"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."
and
"DATED: This (day) day of (month) (year)"
which are necessary components of the complaint template which has to be followed in all cases (See Guide - Templates).

Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff be made to add the missing sections of the Complaint.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening, Honorable and Learned Judge Ameslap.

As a political independent, longstanding lawyer, and former Chief Justice, I seek the opportunity to provide an Amicus Curiae Brief going over the following facts:

• Dearev's political affiliations
• xEndeavour's history with the Defendant
• Precedent established regarding the interaction of these relationships under the law.

As I am not party to this case, and seek only to provide facts and legal analysis, I believe I should be considered a friend of the court, and the brief permited.

 

[gribble19]

Good evening, Honorable and Learned Judge Ameslap.

As a political independent, longstanding lawyer, and former Chief Justice, I seek the opportunity to provide an Amicus Curiae Brief going over the following facts:

• Dearev's political affiliations
• xEndeavour's history with the Defendant
• Precedent established regarding the interaction of these relationships under the law.

As I am not party to this case, and seek only to provide facts and legal analysis, I believe I should be considered a friend of the court, and the brief permited.

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Political affiliations and political history of individual members of the Government, as well as precedent established regarding the interaction of these relationship under the law, are all completely unrelated to how the legal principle of res judicata applies to plot c279. They are also all completely unrelated to whether or not the factual circumstances in the situation of this case violate the constitutional right of "Freedom of Political Communication". As the intended amicus curiae brief has no relevance to either of the claims for relief in this case, the Defendant respectfully requests the court does not accept this request to provide an Amicus Curiae Brief.

 

[ameslap]

I want to give everyone a timeline for how I will be handling this. I am able to be online and checking this case on a rotating basis throughout the day, and I understand that this is not a luxury afforded to everyone.

I have read all of the objections and the request for a new amicus brief however I want the Plaintiff to have a chance to respond to these objections as is their right under the Objections Guide for 24 hours.

Because the outcome of these rulings could impact discovery, we will not be moving forward until these rulings have been made.

Thank you all, I love to see the passion from the legal field and hope it continues outside of this courtroom as well!

 

[CoolChacha97]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Perjury occurs when someone knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law (Criminal Code Act, III.1.(a)).

Plaintiff in their Complaint states under II.2 that there are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore, and then under II.3 that the list of possible reasons is as follows: "being a box or pyramid shape, few or no windows, property clutter, zoning mismatch, being floated or unsupported, clashing materials or colors, unrealistic interior, and "Other visual concerns agreed on by Inspector." This is however a list of 8 reasons as opposed to 10 and is therefore clearly a false statement. It is also clear that this statement was made knowingly, as the Plaintiff stated immediately before that there were 10 possible reasons. Plaintiff thus knew that two reasons were missing from this list.

The two reasons that are missing from II.3 of the Complaint are "Basic matierals (e.g. dirt, cobble; use of limited blocks i.e. building a structure out of just quartz)" and "Plain stone exterior terrain" (See D-003). What makes this act of perjury extra harmful, is that these two reasons are reasons that were explicitly mentioned by the Secretary of the DCT in two of the eviction threads which are the subject of this case. In the thread regarding the eviction report for plot c607, the Secretary of the DCT stated that "This property . . . consists of a stone-based floor."(See D-004). In the thread regarding the eviction report for c279, the Secretary of the DCT stated that "This property was originally reported for the usage of simple materials such as quartz makes the build look untextured and finished" (See D-005). Trying to hide these reasons would potentially allow Plaintiff to falsely argue that the eviction reports were not in line with the stated department policies, as applicable reasons were conveniently left out.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury. (Criminal Code Act, III.1)

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 57650

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 57649

Spoiler: D-005

View attachment 57648

Response​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,
Plaintiff counsel failed to count here, if I truly meant to lie to the court then why link to the evidence proving the lie in the exact same post?

 

[CoolChacha97]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Defendant does not see how testimony of FTLCEO, Vroomba or aligoth is related to the case at hand in any way and Plaintiff has not given any explanation or reasoning for the inclusion of the aforementioned witnesses in their witness list.

Response​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Each of these 3 individuals are DCT employees, and I believe that their testimony will be useful in proving our case. I ask that the court hold the decision on this objection until after the discovery process is over.

 

[CoolChacha97]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain the sections:
"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."
and
"DATED: This (day) day of (month) (year)"
which are necessary components of the complaint template which has to be followed in all cases (See Guide - Templates).

Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff be made to add the missing sections of the Complaint.

Response​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor,
These are frankly minor things, and we will add them if the original post if the judge wishes for that to happen.

 

[CoolChacha97]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Political affiliations and political history of individual members of the Government, as well as precedent established regarding the interaction of these relationship under the law, are all completely unrelated to how the legal principle of res judicata applies to plot c279. They are also all completely unrelated to whether or not the factual circumstances in the situation of this case violate the constitutional right of "Freedom of Political Communication". As the intended amicus curiae brief has no relevance to either of the claims for relief in this case, the Defendant respectfully requests the court does not accept this request to provide an Amicus Curiae Brief.

Response​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor,
An amicus curiae brief from Dartanboy would help cover a potential motivation and reason for why the actions of the defendant took place. It would help this court reach a fair and just verdict in this case.

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Perjury occurs when someone knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law (Criminal Code Act, III.1.(a)).

Plaintiff in their Complaint states under II.2 that there are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore, and then under II.3 that the list of possible reasons is as follows: "being a box or pyramid shape, few or no windows, property clutter, zoning mismatch, being floated or unsupported, clashing materials or colors, unrealistic interior, and "Other visual concerns agreed on by Inspector." This is however a list of 8 reasons as opposed to 10 and is therefore clearly a false statement. It is also clear that this statement was made knowingly, as the Plaintiff stated immediately before that there were 10 possible reasons. Plaintiff thus knew that two reasons were missing from this list.

The two reasons that are missing from II.3 of the Complaint are "Basic matierals (e.g. dirt, cobble; use of limited blocks i.e. building a structure out of just quartz)" and "Plain stone exterior terrain" (See D-003). What makes this act of perjury extra harmful, is that these two reasons are reasons that were explicitly mentioned by the Secretary of the DCT in two of the eviction threads which are the subject of this case. In the thread regarding the eviction report for plot c607, the Secretary of the DCT stated that "This property . . . consists of a stone-based floor."(See D-004). In the thread regarding the eviction report for c279, the Secretary of the DCT stated that "This property was originally reported for the usage of simple materials such as quartz makes the build look untextured and finished" (See D-005). Trying to hide these reasons would potentially allow Plaintiff to falsely argue that the eviction reports were not in line with the stated department policies, as applicable reasons were conveniently left out.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury. (Criminal Code Act, III.1)

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 57650

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 57649

Spoiler: D-005

View attachment 57648

Based on the testimony given by Plaintiff's counsel, I will not charge counsel with Perjury, but this is a warning that any future mistakes will be considered intentional and will be handled as perjury

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Defendant does not see how testimony of FTLCEO, Vroomba or aligoth is related to the case at hand in any way and Plaintiff has not given any explanation or reasoning for the inclusion of the aforementioned witnesses in their witness list.

I will wait to fully rule on the relevance until discovery is over and request that the Plaintiff submits some evidence to establish their relevancy to this case.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE, BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,
The evidence provided by the Plaintiff has not been appropriately labeled in line with Rule 4.6 of our Court Rules and Procedures, which will make it incredibly difficult to easily refer to the pieces of evidence throughout the course of this case.

The Defendant respectfully request the Plaintiff be made to properly label and format their evidence in line with established court procedures.

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain the sections:
"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."
and
"DATED: This (day) day of (month) (year)"
which are necessary components of the complaint template which has to be followed in all cases (See Guide - Templates).

Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff be made to add the missing sections of the Complaint.

Both are sustained. The plaintiff is required to label their evidence and update the complaint within the next 48 hours.

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Political affiliations and political history of individual members of the Government, as well as precedent established regarding the interaction of these relationship under the law, are all completely unrelated to how the legal principle of res judicata applies to plot c279. They are also all completely unrelated to whether or not the factual circumstances in the situation of this case violate the constitutional right of "Freedom of Political Communication". As the intended amicus curiae brief has no relevance to either of the claims for relief in this case, the Defendant respectfully requests the court does not accept this request to provide an Amicus Curiae Brief.

Overruled - for now. I will allow @Dartanboy to provide their amicus brief within the next 24 hours. That being said, the Defense may motion to strike or object for relevance the brief if it truly is not relevant.


Now we shall begin Discovery, it shall last for 5 days. If both parties agree they may end discovery early. If I missed an objection or motion please let me know but I think I got it all taken care of.

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

A list of all properties owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont.

 

[End]

Good evening, Honorable and Learned Judge Ameslap.

As a political independent, longstanding lawyer, and former Chief Justice, I seek the opportunity to provide an Amicus Curiae Brief going over the following facts:

• Dearev's political affiliations
• xEndeavour's history with the Defendant
• Precedent established regarding the interaction of these relationships under the law.

As I am not party to this case, and seek only to provide facts and legal analysis, I believe I should be considered a friend of the court, and the brief permited.

In light of the court approving an amicus brief in to my relationship with the defendant, I would like to request to file an amicus brief on the culture of the department.

 

[ameslap]

In light of the court approving an amicus brief in to my relationship with the defendant, I would like to request to file an amicus brief on the culture of the department.

I’ll allow it under the same condition that either party may motion to strike or object based on relevance once the brief is submitted

Please provide your brief in the next 24 hours.

 

[ToadKing]

In light of the court approving an amicus brief in to my relationship with the defendant, I would like to request to file an amicus brief on the culture of the department.

Objection

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

Your Honor, using the Defendant's previous argument:

In Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42, #3 the plaintiff's counsel argued that: "An amicus brief is a legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof." The Defendant "agreed with this and argues the same here."

To allow this amicus brief, violates the principles argued in an abhorrent manner. The brief submitter is quite literally a named party in this case.

Galactic Empire of Redmont (Represented by MZLD law)
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Construction and Transportation
"xendeavour" is the Secretary of said department.

Witnesses:
FTLCEO
xendeavour
Vroomba
yeet_boy
aligoth

We respectfully ask the court to reject this improper amicus brief by a named party.

 

[Dartanboy]

Brief

Introduction
Good Morning, Hon. Ameslap.

This brief seeks to provide only facts and legal analysis, without bias for either party.

On Dearev's Political Affiliations and its Implications
Dearev is a member of the Workers' Party of Redmont (WPR)

Spoiler: Dearev Party Membership

This isn't inherently an issue, however it raises the level of scrutiny that this case must be examined under, as the nature of the Redmontian political system makes Dearev a natural rival of the GER, even if their ideology is similar.

On xEndeavour's History with the GER
xEndeavour is known to be an opponent of the GER, himself stating just two days ago that he "has historically not supported the GER".

Spoiler: Quote from End

A simple search for messages from xEndeavour mentioning the GER in the main DC Discord will uncover negative views of the GER from Mr. End dating as far back as October of 2022.

Spoiler: October 2022 Message

On Precedent Regarding the Interaction of These Relationships
In [2023] FCR 27, the Hon. Judge dygyee made the determination that "There is no better evidence [that the building inspector was biased] than [the building inspector] themselves stating that they dislike the party system, and furthermore expressing public dislike of the GER and its members specifically."

Given this precedent, and recognizing the political affiliations of both DCT Agents, it is considered impossible for them to be truly unbiased.

Now, having some biases does not necessarily mean they acted unlawfully, but it does raise the level of scrutiny the actions taken in this case must be examined under. I would ask the court to look closely at this case and consider:

• Whether similar buildings are evicted as eyesores if they are owned by the WPR, RRP, or individuals without political affiliations;
• Whether the contested evictions are made in pursuit of an actual, reasonable, articulable Government interest;
• Whether unfair biases played a role in the decisions made

Conclusion
Your Honor,

I believe this brief has laid out the facts plainly and made clear the questions that this court ought to answer.

Thank you,
Dartanboy
Former Chief Justice

 

[ameslap]

In light of the court approving an amicus brief in to my relationship with the defendant, I would like to request to file an amicus brief on the culture of the department.

I’ll allow it under the same condition that either party may motion to strike or object based on relevance once the brief is submitted

Please provide your brief in the next 24 hours.

Objection

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

Your Honor, using the Defendant's previous argument:

In Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42, #3 the plaintiff's counsel argued that: "An amicus brief is a legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof." The Defendant "agreed with this and argues the same here."

To allow this amicus brief, violates the principles argued in an abhorrent manner. The brief submitter is quite literally a named party in this case.

Galactic Empire of Redmont (Represented by MZLD law)
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Construction and Transportation
"xendeavour" is the Secretary of said department.

Witnesses:
FTLCEO
xendeavour
Vroomba
yeet_boy
aligoth

We respectfully ask the court to reject this improper amicus brief by a named party.

I will wait the 24 hours to see if there is a response by the Defendant prior to fully ruling on this objection just as I did prior.

End (I won’t @ you but please make yourself aware), you are not to post the brief until this objection is resolved.

 

[End]

If I am direct party to the case then I should be able to make submissions to the case. If I am not party to the case, then I should be able to file an amicus brief.

At the moment I am being afforded neither.

 

[CoolChacha97]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint as follows:

{2. Eviction posts, c607, c226, c279, c454, c364 is archived and cannot be viewed.
3. GER discord
4. Inspector policy
5. Eviction policy
6. Political party registration}
All within {} removed
(
P-001 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c607-jul-29-2025.26874/
P-002 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c226-jul-22-2025.26875/
P-003 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c279-jul-22-2025.26876/
P-004 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c454-jul-24-2025.26789/
P-005 Join the The Galactic Empire of Redmont Discord Server!
P-006 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/inspector-guide.16/
P-007 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/evictions-policy.26813/
P-008 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/yeet_boy-galactic-empire-of-redmont-ger.16048/

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 24th day of July 2025

)
All within () added

 

[CoolChacha97]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint as follows:
(P-009 Image)
All within () added

 

[Franciscus]

If I am direct party to the case then I should be able to make submissions to the case. If I am not party to the case, then I should be able to file an amicus brief.

At the moment I am being afforded neither.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

As I have previously stated,

The above writ of summons was issued to “@gribble19 or their representative”. As xEndeavour has confirmed that he “do[es]n’t claim to represent the DOJ”, it is clear that xEndeavour is not the representative of the Attorney General in this case, and that these additional statements should be stricken as spoken out-of-turn.

And as Your Honor has previously stated,

Objection sustained. I allowed the Secretary to speak one time only in regards to the Emergency Injunction, no other instance was allowed and as such those comments shall be struck from the record. Let it be further clarified that the Executive Standards Act gives the Department of Justice the power to "(a) Defending the national legal interest."

It does not matter if a department was named as the main defendant, they are apart of the national government and as such the DoJ is empowered to defend them. At the request of the Plaintiff's counsel, I will not be charging End with Contempt but will do so if they continue to speak without written approval from the Attorney General.

A similar logic applies in this case - xEndeavour does not have the authority to make statements in Court representing as the Commonwealth's counsel absent a written statement from the Attorney General empowering xEndeavour to represent the Commonwealth here. xEndeavour's comments should be stricken, just as they were stricken before.

What's more: xEndeavour appears to be ignoring your orders regarding speaking out-of-turn after being warned, and even after the Plaintiff's counsel asked Your Honor to cut end some slack before. For this reason, the Plaintiff would ask that Your Honor charge xEndeavour with Contempt of Court for repeated out-of-turn statements in this case.

 

[CoolChacha97]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

A list of all properties owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont.

While we cannot provide a full list of all properties owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont, as businesses/parties cannot own properties, we will provide a list of all properties owned by yeet_boy, the leader and "Grand Admiral" of the Galactic Empire of Redmont of P-10 through P-013
This list was taken at approximately 12:10 AM EST on July 24th 2025

 

[ameslap]

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint as follows:

{2. Eviction posts, c607, c226, c279, c454, c364 is archived and cannot be viewed.
3. GER discord
4. Inspector policy
5. Eviction policy
6. Political party registration}
All within {} removed
(
P-001 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c607-jul-29-2025.26874/
P-002 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c226-jul-22-2025.26875/
P-003 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c279-jul-22-2025.26876/
P-004 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c454-jul-24-2025.26789/
P-005 Join the The Galactic Empire of Redmont Discord Server!
P-006 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/inspector-guide.16/
P-007 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/evictions-policy.26813/
P-008 https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/yeet_boy-galactic-empire-of-redmont-ger.16048/

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 24th day of July 2025

)
All within () added

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff amends the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint as follows:
(P-009 Image)
All within () added

Cool! Go ahead and edit your original complaint to match the changes.

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honor, using the Defendant's previous argument:

In Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42, #3 the plaintiff's counsel argued that: "An amicus brief is a legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof." The Defendant "agreed with this and argues the same here."

To allow this amicus brief, violates the principles argued in an abhorrent manner. The brief submitter is quite literally a named party in this case.

Galactic Empire of Redmont (Represented by MZLD law)
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Construction and Transportation
"xendeavour" is the Secretary of said department.

Witnesses:
FTLCEO
xendeavour
Vroomba
yeet_boy
aligoth

We respectfully ask the court to reject this improper amicus brief by a named party.

After reviewing the information, I have decided to sustain this objection. I want to make this clear: End is not a direct party to this case as the DCT is the Defendant and by extension the Government itself. As such the DOJ is the only body that may represent government agencies (unless delegated by the DOJ). If End wishes to submit evidence he should hand it over to the legal representation of the Commonwealth. Additionally, an Amicus Brief would be irrelevant as End has been called as a witness and so any such brief could be made during testimony if either party wishes to hear it.

End, your request for an Amicus Brief is hereby denied.

If I am direct party to the case then I should be able to make submissions to the case. If I am not party to the case, then I should be able to file an amicus brief.

At the moment I am being afforded neither.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

As I have previously stated,


And as Your Honor has previously stated,


A similar logic applies in this case - xEndeavour does not have the authority to make statements in Court representing as the Commonwealth's counsel absent a written statement from the Attorney General empowering xEndeavour to represent the Commonwealth here. xEndeavour's comments should be stricken, just as they were stricken before.

What's more: xEndeavour appears to be ignoring your orders regarding speaking out-of-turn after being warned, and even after the Plaintiff's counsel asked Your Honor to cut end some slack before. For this reason, the Plaintiff would ask that Your Honor charge xEndeavour with Contempt of Court for repeated out-of-turn statements in this case.

Please see above about the proper channels to submit evidence or give testimony as the Secretary of the DCT during this trial.

I shall be sustaining this objection and charging xEndeavour with Contempt of Court. The Department of Homeland Security is ordered to fine xEndeavour $5,000 (50 Penalty Units) and jail them for 10 minutes. As a former Chief Justice and regular in the courts, xEndeavour should know the proceedings by now and know when to speak and not speak within the court.

 

[CoolChacha97]

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

In accordance with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following from the Defendant:
1. Any message containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the department of construction and transportation discord, and the preceding and following 20 messages. (DCT) From March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.
2. Any message containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the direct messages of xEndeavour on discord, and the preceding and following 20 messages. From March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.

 

[CoolChacha97]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of interrogatories under Rule 4.8
The plaintiff requests that the defendant answer the following questions truthfully

1. Was any action by the DCT against the Galactic Empire of Redmont politically motivated in any way?
2. Did any employees of the DCT feel the evictions were not conducted properly or question their legality?
3. Did any of these evictions happen because of orders from higher up in government?
4. Why specifically were these plots evicted?
5. Was the DCT being unusually harsh against the Galactic Empire of Redmont in these evictions?

 

[gribble19]

While we cannot provide a full list of all properties owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont, as businesses/parties cannot own properties, we will provide a list of all properties owned by yeet_boy, the leader and "Grand Admiral" of the Galactic Empire of Redmont of P-10 through P-013
This list was taken at approximately 12:10 AM EST on July 24th 2025

II. FACTS
6. The plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Plaintiff in their complaint stated as a fact that the plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message, which means that the GER owns at least one plot or else it can also not be built in a specific way to spread a political message. The Plaintiff is now stating that GER does not own any plots. These statements are not congruent, and at least one of these has to be false. As both statements were made by the exact same person it is clear that this was done knowingly.
Defendant would further like to note that this is the second time within this proceeding that the Plaintiff has misrepresented facts and that the Court has previously warned plaintiff that a second instance of this would result in a perjury charge.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury. (Criminal Code Act, III.1)

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Plaintiff in their complaint stated as a fact that the plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message, which means that the GER owns at least one plot or else it can also not be built in a specific way to spread a political message. The Plaintiff is now stating that GER does not own any plots. These statements are not congruent, and at least one of these has to be false. As both statements were made by the exact same person it is clear that this was done knowingly.
Defendant would further like to note that this is the second time within this proceeding that the Plaintiff has misrepresented facts and that the Court has previously warned plaintiff that a second instance of this would result in a perjury charge.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury. (Criminal Code Act, III.1)

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Objection

Your Honor,

The Attorney General is trying to conflate beneficial ownership with de jure ownership here, and in doing so is making false accusations of perjury.

To the best of my knowledge: In-game, only individual minecraft accounts can directly own plots de jure. The areashop (/as) system only allows players to own and register plots, and technical setting enforced do not allow plots to be directly owned by businesses or non-player entities (as far as I am aware, the various DC Government accounts are actual minecraft accounts).

However, it is well-established that businesses can beneficially own plots that are legally owned by individuals. For example: in Discover Bank v. _Pugsy [2024] FCR 51, the Federal Court held a contract to be enforceable (also attached as evidence "P-R02") that contained a corporate collateral seizure clause. The clause worked as follows: in the event that the mortgage was defaulted, Discover Bank (a company) would claim ownership of the plot via its agent (Nexalin). In other words, the while the /db entity corresponding to Discover Bank did not "own" through the /as system, the Bank would effectively own the plot on default by having its agent hold the plot on its behalf.

That players can and do de jure own plots on behalf that are beneficially owned by businesses is undisputed. In common parlance refer to these sorts of plots as being "owned" by the non-player entity (see: Exhibit P-R01).

In response to the question, the Plaintiff intended to comment on the de jure ownership of these plots. That the plots are legally owned by Yeet_Boy is not disputed and is borne out by evidence in the complaint. But that the plots are owned for use by and for the benefit of the GER is also undisputed; the plots uniformly display GER branding and/or flags throughout, and are built in accordance with the the style and politics of the GER. In other words, the plots are beneficially owned by the GER.

My co-counsel used "owned" in different senses within the two places. With respect to the Attorney General's request, the co-counsel used "owned" in the sense of de jure ownership. With respect to the complaint, my co-counsel used it in the sense of beneficial ownership. That one word ("owned") has multiple meanings and senses relevant in this case may indicate a regrettable lack of clarity, but I doubt that my co-counsel intentionally provided false testimony in a court of law.

That is to say, while word choice may have been poor, the statements are not logically contradictory when read through the writer's intent, and as such I don't believe that this constitutes perjury under the law.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-R01

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Plaintiff in their complaint stated as a fact that the plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message, which means that the GER owns at least one plot or else it can also not be built in a specific way to spread a political message. The Plaintiff is now stating that GER does not own any plots. These statements are not congruent, and at least one of these has to be false. As both statements were made by the exact same person it is clear that this was done knowingly.
Defendant would further like to note that this is the second time within this proceeding that the Plaintiff has misrepresented facts and that the Court has previously warned plaintiff that a second instance of this would result in a perjury charge.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury. (Criminal Code Act, III.1)

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Objection

Your Honor,

The Attorney General is trying to conflate beneficial ownership with de jure ownership here, and in doing so is making false accusations of perjury.

To the best of my knowledge: In-game, only individual minecraft accounts can directly own plots de jure. The areashop (/as) system only allows players to own and register plots, and technical setting enforced do not allow plots to be directly owned by businesses or non-player entities (as far as I am aware, the various DC Government accounts are actual minecraft accounts).

However, it is well-established that businesses can beneficially own plots that are legally owned by individuals. For example: in Discover Bank v. _Pugsy [2024] FCR 51, the Federal Court held a contract to be enforceable (also attached as evidence "P-R02") that contained a corporate collateral seizure clause. The clause worked as follows: in the event that the mortgage was defaulted, Discover Bank (a company) would claim ownership of the plot via its agent (Nexalin). In other words, the while the /db entity corresponding to Discover Bank did not "own" through the /as system, the Bank would effectively own the plot on default by having its agent hold the plot on its behalf.

That players can and do de jure own plots on behalf that are beneficially owned by businesses is undisputed. In common parlance refer to these sorts of plots as being "owned" by the non-player entity (see: Exhibit P-R01).

In response to the question, the Plaintiff intended to comment on the de jure ownership of these plots. That the plots are legally owned by Yeet_Boy is not disputed and is borne out by evidence in the complaint. But that the plots are owned for use by and for the benefit of the GER is also undisputed; the plots uniformly display GER branding and/or flags throughout, and are built in accordance with the the style and politics of the GER. In other words, the plots are beneficially owned by the GER.

My co-counsel used "owned" in different senses within the two places. With respect to the Attorney General's request, the co-counsel used "owned" in the sense of de jure ownership. With respect to the complaint, my co-counsel used it in the sense of beneficial ownership. That one word ("owned") has multiple meanings and senses relevant in this case may indicate a regrettable lack of clarity, but I doubt that my co-counsel intentionally provided false testimony in a court of law.

That is to say, while word choice may have been poor, the statements are not logically contradictory when read through the writer's intent, and as such I don't believe that this constitutes perjury under the law.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-R01

View attachment 57979

While we cannot provide a full list of all properties owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont, as businesses/parties cannot own properties, we will provide a list of all properties owned by yeet_boy, the leader and "Grand Admiral" of the Galactic Empire of Redmont of P-10 through P-013
This list was taken at approximately 12:10 AM EST on July 24th 2025

I will overrule this objection on the basis that businesses/organizations have been found to be able to have beneficial ownership rather than de jure ownership.

I will say that the Plaintiff needs to list all properties that are beneficially owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont not just those owned by yeet_boy. Please do so by the end of discovery or request an extension.

 

[CoolChacha97]

I will overrule this objection on the basis that businesses/organizations have been found to be able to have beneficial ownership rather than de jure ownership.

I will say that the Plaintiff needs to list all properties that are beneficially owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont not just those owned by yeet_boy. Please do so by the end of discovery or request an extension.

Your honor,
This is the current list I have of all plots beneficially owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont
c179
c116
c454
c279
c607
c364
c226
s094
s095
s096
s097
s119
Do note that all of the s plots (so94, s095, s096, s097, s119) are unfinished and I believe are awaiting a paste from the Department of construction and transportation.
I am not sure if this is a full and complete list of all plots beneficially owned by the Galactic Empire of Redmont, though I don't believe there are any others out there. If I find out the existence of another one of these plots I will notify this court.

 

[gribble19]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of interrogatories under Rule 4.8
The plaintiff requests that the defendant answer the following questions truthfully

1. Was any action by the DCT against the Galactic Empire of Redmont politically motivated in any way?
2. Did any employees of the DCT feel the evictions were not conducted properly or question their legality?
3. Did any of these evictions happen because of orders from higher up in government?
4. Why specifically were these plots evicted?
5. Was the DCT being unusually harsh against the Galactic Empire of Redmont in these evictions?

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
1. Was any action by the DCT against the Galactic Empire of Redmont politically motivated in any way?

No, all evictions filed are evidence-based. As you can see, the reporting was made in accordance with the Department's eviction policy. While this is inherently a subjective process, there is a significant amount of guidance provided in the eviction policy which guides this decision making. Further, when the plaintiff requested a review, six of their reports were personally reviewed by the Secretary which resulted in two of six being quashed and the remainder upheld. If the Department was politically motivated, there would not be correlation with the policy, and it would not self-regulate the evictions as seen in this instance.

2. Did any employees of the DCT feel the evictions were not conducted properly or question their legality?

One of seventeen inspectors said in general conversation, and not specifically related to any report, that Yeet's buildings looked fine. There was otherwise agreement among a number of other members in the same conversation about the lack of build quality in Yeet's properties. Each report must have a sponsor and cosponsor to be reported.

3. Did any of these evictions happen because of orders from higher up in government?

No.

4. Why specifically were these plots evicted?

You can refer to the secretary's response in each of the reports, which are part of evidence.

5. Was the DCT being unusually harsh against the Galactic Empire of Redmont in these evictions?

No, if anything the DCT was more lenient in affording them further time without request from the GER, as well as having secondary assessment from the Secretary, which led to dismissal of evictions, which is not usually afforded to the regular player.

 

[gribble19]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

All documents, contracts, or agreements resulting in the beneficial ownership of the following plots by the Galactic Empire of Redmont, as well as a list of dates since which the Galactic Empire of Redmont has beneficial ownership of the following plots:
Plots c607, c226, c279, and c454.