Lawsuit: Adjourned Justice Compass, Ltd. v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98

Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Attorney
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,706

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Justice Compass, Ltd. (CEO Dartanboy representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Justice Compass, Ltd. worked a long, difficult case that, under the law, requires legal fees to be paid. Furthermore, the Federal Court ordered that the DHS ensure these legal fees be paid.

The Commonwealth has refused to fulfill their duty, and refused to comply with the Court Order.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Justice Compass, Ltd. (Plaintiff).
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant).

II. FACTS
1. On October 26, 2022, the Former Honorable Judge dygyee ordered "the DOJ to fine the NotGamerrr $5,500 and unfine Crxka the same amount" [Exhibit P-003].
2. On December 26, 2022, the Former Honorable Judge dygyee ordered the $5,500 to be transferred again due to the Commonwealth failing to action the verdict initially (plus $200 in legal fees), resulting in a total of $11,200 being awarded [Exhibit P-004].
3. On September 12, 2025, the Honorable Judge AmityBlamity issued a verdict in the case of Lawsuit: Adjourned - Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32 [Exhibit P-001]
4. The aforementioned verdict required the Department of Homeland Security unfine Justice Compass $2,790,000 [Exhibit P-001].
5. On September 24, 2025, Justice Compass, Ltd. reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, asking when the verdict was going to be actioned [Exhibit P-002].
6. Shortly thereafter, Secretary Angryhamdog informed Justice Compass that they did not intend to follow the court order [Exhibit P-002].

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Disobedience of Court Order (Constitutional Violation - Ignoring the Court's Judicial Power) - In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, the Federal Court ordered the DHS "to unfine ... [Justice Compass, Ltd.] $2,790,000". The DHS has informed me they are not going to do this.
2. Constitutional Rights Violation - The Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable seizure. For all intents and purposes, the Commonwealth has seized $2,790,000 from my company, and by extension, from me. They have done this without a legal cause.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Commonwealth be compelled to pay me the already-ordered $2,790,000.
2. $837,000 in Legal Fees, per the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE
Dartanboy

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32'

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Vanguard & Co (Justice Compass Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Defendant, Naezaratheus, has committed a tremendous fraud – much larger, I believe, than the likes of any other crime we’ve seen in the history of the great Commonwealth of Redmont. Throughout the last two weeks or so, Naezaratheus has disregarded all common-sense decencies, abandoned moral justice, and most importantly, blatantly chose to...
Click to expand...

  • Skull
  • Wow

1758769384626.png

KermieTheP0tat0

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'Crxka v. NotGamerrr [2022] FCR 86'

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION



Crxka (Represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

NotGamerrr
Defendant


COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honor,

On October 4, 2022, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff concerning the construction of a building. As part of the contract, the Defendant agreed to pay for the construction by October 19, 2022. The Defendant breached the contract and did not pay the Plaintiff.


I. PARTIES

1. Crxka
2. NotGamerrr


II. FACTS

1...

pepper5980

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'Crxka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 103'

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Crxka (represented by pepper5980)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT:
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

So basically from the previous case I built a player his house but he didn’t pay me so I sued him and then the judge ruled that the player was fined $5500 and that I was to be given $5500 but it has been 2 months and I have tried to contact DOJ but they are claiming that they paid me when I never did if I were to receive the money I would have gotten a mail...

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 September 2025.



Motion


MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

This case has extraordinary similarity to Lawsuit: Adjourned - Crxka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 103, where the Commonwealth had chosen not to carry out a fine-and-unfine court order.

Essentially, this case has already been decided by the Federal Court, and there is no need to litigate it again.

 
Last edited:
Your honor, it appears Exhibit P-002 did not enter into the spoiler correctly, however, it is still attached to the post as an attachment.

May I fix the error?
 

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur , is required to appear before the federal Court in the case of Justice Compass, Ltd. v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98

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.

 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, it appears Exhibit P-002 did not enter into the spoiler correctly, however, it is still attached to the post as an attachment.

May I fix the error?
Click to expand...
You may.
 
I have arrived, the Commonwealth requests to respond to the motion for default judgement
 
asexualdinosaur said:
I have arrived, the Commonwealth requests to respond to the motion for default judgement
Click to expand...
You may, please ensure that you file an answer to complaint within the time frame
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Justice Compass, Ltd. (CEO Dartanboy representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm
2. Affirm
3. Affirm
4. Affirm, noting the verdict ALSO required that the defendant was fined for the same amount.
5. Affirm
6. Deny

II. DEFENCES
1. While the court may have ordered an unfining of a certain value of money, it also required that the fining of the same value was to be issued. The DHS is acting as the executor of the order, the commonwealth is not responsible for the debts of citizens. The DHS actioned the order to the best of their ability.
2. In situations like these in the past the DHS would track the debts of users and get the funds later or issue warrants to liquidate properties or other assets. These avenues have already been exhausted and there’s no more funds to procure.
3. The plaintiff failed to utilize certain tools and procedures that may have prevented the harm they’re facing currently, in the form of an Emergency Injunction. No EI was ever filed in this case despite the claims and alleged fraud of funds against the defendant which might have protected the funds from being dispersed.
4. Somewhat ironically, the funds claimed by the DHS were used in this appeal (also by the plaintiff) prior to the verdict issued in the relevant case.
5. Dartanman is not a newbie lawyer, the concept of an emergency injunction is something they’re very familiar with.

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 2nd day of OCT 2025


Brief


Your honor,

While the case may appear to be similar it should be noted that the linked case went to a default judgement and the Commonwealth was not able to provide any evidence or reasoning for what had happened. It’s unclear whether or not the Commonwealth had actually paid the fine or not, and so it was assumed they hadn’t and ordered it to take place.

In contrast to this case- the DHS isn’t refusing to enact on an order, they’re simply unable to enact on an order. The facts of this case surround whether or not the language of the judicial officer is to be taken in a very literal manner and if the Commonwealth is liable for the debts of its citizens, or if the language is complimentary to the process and not literal and that the Commonwealth is not liable for the debts of its citizens.

As such the Commonwealth suggests that this case has NOT been litigated already, and we seek to provide evidence and explanation to support our claims that the court should not force the Commonwealth into an impossible situation.

Thank you.

 
asexualdinosaur said:
Somewhat ironically, the funds claimed by the DHS were used in this appeal (also by the plaintiff) prior to the verdict issued in the relevant case.
Click to expand...

Objection


PERJURY

I represented the Plaintiff in the mentioned case, however, I was not the Plaintiff.

 
I will be denying the motion for default judgement, in addition to claim 1, in claim 2 it is alleged that the actions of the commonwealth have constituted a Constitutional Rights Violation, and as this was not contested in Crxka v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 103, this case has not already been litigated.
 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


PERJURY

I represented the Plaintiff in the mentioned case, however, I was not the Plaintiff.

Click to expand...
I will be overruling this objection, perjury requires evidence that incorrect statement was made knowingly.
 
We will be entering discovery for a period of 5 days, I'd like to remind both parties of the Court Rules and Procedures related to discovery.
 
xtub12345 said:
I will be overruling this objection, perjury requires evidence that incorrect statement was made knowingly.
Click to expand...

Motion


MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, there is no alternative explanation. Clearly, the Commonwealth is able to read and write as they found the case and have written posts in this one.

They are clearly aware of the case previously mentioned, as they linked to it.

They're even aware of the intricacies of that case, as they made a claim regarding how it was handled.

There is no alternative (reasonable) explanation for the false statement.

They knew the truth, and lied to the court.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, there is no alternative explanation. Clearly, the Commonwealth is able to read and write as they found the case and have written posts in this one.

They are clearly aware of the case previously mentioned, as they linked to it.

They're even aware of the intricacies of that case, as they made a claim regarding how it was handled.

There is no alternative (reasonable) explanation for the false statement.

They knew the truth, and lied to the court.

Click to expand...
Apologies to the court for the interruption, but I feel compelled to assure all parties this was a simple mistake, and request the court allow me to amend the answer as such to say 'by Plaintiff's counsel'

I assume this is satisfactory for opposing counsel to allow things to move forward.
 

Motion


MOTION TO RECUSE

It has been 19 days since the Hon. @xtub12345 has responded to this case. This is a violation of the Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial.

We request a new Judge be assigned.

 

Motion


MOTION TO RECUSE

Given the lack of response by the Presiding Judge, I assume the motion to be de-facto overruled. As such, I request the Supreme Court @Matthew100x @Aladeen @Smallfries to rule on the Motion instead.

 

Accepted


According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly.
Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground.
The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Ooh, black and yellow!
Let's shake it up a little.
Barry! Breakfast is ready!
Coming!
Hang on a second.
Hello?
Barry?
Adam?
Can you believe this is happening?
I can't.
I'll pick you up.
Looking sharp.
Use the stairs, Your father paid good money for those.
Sorry. I'm excited.
Here's the graduate.
We're very proud of you, son.
A perfect report card, all B's.
Very proud.
Ma! I got a thing going here.
You got lint on your fuzz.
Ow! That's me!
Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000.
Bye!
Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house!
Hey, Adam.
Hey, Barry.
Is that fuzz gel?
A little. Special day, graduation.
Never thought I'd make it.
Three days grade school, three days high school.
Those were awkward.
Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around The Hive.
You did come back different.
Hi, Barry. Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good.
Hear about Frankie?
Yeah.
You going to the funeral?
No, I'm not going.
Everybody knows, sting someone, you die.
Don't waste it on a squirrel.
Such a hothead.
I guess he could have just gotten out of the way.
I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day.
That's why we don't need vacations.
Boy, quite a bit of pomp under the circumstances.
Well, Adam, today we are men.
We are!
Bee-men.
Amen!
Hallelujah!
Students, faculty, distinguished bees,
please welcome Dean Buzzwell.
Welcome, New Hive City graduating class of 9:15.
That concludes our ceremonies And begins your career at Honex Industries!
Will we pick our job today?
I heard it's just orientation.
Heads up! Here we go.
Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times.
Wonder what it'll be like?
A little scary.
Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group.
This is it!
Wow.
Wow.
We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life.
Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to The Hive.
Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey!
That girl was hot.
She's my cousin!
She is?
Yes, we're all cousins.
Right. You're right.
At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence.
These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology.
What do you think he makes?
Not enough.
Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman.
What does that do?
Catches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Dartanboy @asexualdinosaur I have taken over this case. Discovery concluded LONG AGO but I will reopen it for the next 48 hours just to make sure we are good.

Also within the next 48 hours both parties need to respond on if they would like an in-game trial or not. Failure to respond to this MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION shall result in a warning with contempt.
 
ameslap said:
@Dartanboy @asexualdinosaur I have taken over this case. Discovery concluded LONG AGO but I will reopen it for the next 48 hours just to make sure we are good.

Also within the next 48 hours both parties need to respond on if they would like an in-game trial or not. Failure to respond to this MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION shall result in a warning with contempt.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff is willing to participate in an in-game trial if it can be scheduled within a reasonable timeframe.
 
Your honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to call the Secretary of Homeland Security as a witness.
 
xtub12345 said:

Accepted

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly.
Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground.
The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.
Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black.
Ooh, black and yellow!
Let's shake it up a little.
Barry! Breakfast is ready!
Coming!
Hang on a second.
Hello?
Barry?
Adam?
Can you believe this is happening?
I can't.
I'll pick you up.
Looking sharp.
Use the stairs, Your father paid good money for those.
Sorry. I'm excited.
Here's the graduate.
We're very proud of you, son.
A perfect report card, all B's.
Very proud.
Ma! I got a thing going here.
You got lint on your fuzz.
Ow! That's me!
Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000.
Bye!
Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house!
Hey, Adam.
Hey, Barry.
Is that fuzz gel?
A little. Special day, graduation.
Never thought I'd make it.
Three days grade school, three days high school.
Those were awkward.
Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around The Hive.
You did come back different.
Hi, Barry. Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good.
Hear about Frankie?
Yeah.
You going to the funeral?
No, I'm not going.
Everybody knows, sting someone, you die.
Don't waste it on a squirrel.
Such a hothead.
I guess he could have just gotten out of the way.
I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day.
That's why we don't need vacations.
Boy, quite a bit of pomp under the circumstances.
Well, Adam, today we are men.
We are!
Bee-men.
Amen!
Hallelujah!
Students, faculty, distinguished bees,
please welcome Dean Buzzwell.
Welcome, New Hive City graduating class of 9:15.
That concludes our ceremonies And begins your career at Honex Industries!
Will we pick our job today?
I heard it's just orientation.
Heads up! Here we go.
Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times.
Wonder what it'll be like?
A little scary.
Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group.
This is it!
Wow.
Wow.
We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life.
Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to The Hive.
Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey!
That girl was hot.
She's my cousin!
She is?
Yes, we're all cousins.
Right. You're right.
At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence.
These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology.
What do you think he makes?
Not enough.
Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman.
What does that do?
Catches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it.

Click to expand...

Motion


MOTION TO STRIKE

The Commonwealth moves to strike all irrelevant portions of this acceptance of recusal, seeing the space that it takes up, the irrelevance of the scriptwriting of the so-called “Bee Movie”, and the clutter that it creates on the court’s record.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ameslap said:
@Dartanboy @asexualdinosaur I have taken over this case. Discovery concluded LONG AGO but I will reopen it for the next 48 hours just to make sure we are good.

Also within the next 48 hours both parties need to respond on if they would like an in-game trial or not. Failure to respond to this MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION shall result in a warning with contempt.
Click to expand...
The Commonwealth is willing to entertain the possibility of an in-game trial, and moves for sidebar communications to arrange this.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Motion


MOTION TO STRIKE

The Commonwealth moves to strike all irrelevant portions of this acceptance of recusal, seeing the space that it takes up, the irrelevance of the scriptwriting of the so-called “Bee Movie”, and the clutter that it creates on the court’s record.

Click to expand...
Denied. If only so that the record is preserved for the ongoing trial of Judge xtub in the Senate if needed.

I will make it so it is a spoiler that needs to be expanded however.


Also I will make the support ticket in the next few hours so we can setup an in-game trial.
 

Motion


MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The defense move to amend the defenses section of their answer to complaint as follows:

Replaces the current defense 5 with:

“5. The plaintiff illicitly requests $837,000 in legal fees, contrary to the Legal Damages Act (“LDA”). The LDA states that legal fees are to be awarded at no greater than 30% of the total value of the case. Defining the total value of a civil case, the LDA states that, “(i) In civil cases, the value of a case shall be assessed as either the award actually granted if the plaintiff prevails, or the award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails.” In this case, the plaintiff is not requesting any sum of money to be actually granted, but rather for the DHS to be compelled to action a court order, as they explicitly state. (If the amount was to be actually granted by the courts, the courts would be doubling the amount owed to the plaintiff for the same case verdict.) The legal fees of the case are therefore illicit.”

For the purposes of making our defenses more clear and robust
[/motiom]

 
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Motion


MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The defense move to amend the defenses section of their answer to complaint as follows:

Replaces the current defense 5 with:

“5. The plaintiff illicitly requests $837,000 in legal fees, contrary to the Legal Damages Act (“LDA”). The LDA states that legal fees are to be awarded at no greater than 30% of the total value of the case. Defining the total value of a civil case, the LDA states that, “(i) In civil cases, the value of a case shall be assessed as either the award actually granted if the plaintiff prevails, or the award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails.” In this case, the plaintiff is not requesting any sum of money to be actually granted, but rather for the DHS to be compelled to action a court order, as they explicitly state. (If the amount was to be actually granted by the courts, the courts would be doubling the amount owed to the plaintiff for the same case verdict.) The legal fees of the case are therefore illicit.”

For the purposes of making our defenses more clear and robust
[/motiom]

Click to expand...
[/motiom] Approved. Go ahead.
 
ameslap said:
@Dartanboy @asexualdinosaur I have taken over this case. Discovery concluded LONG AGO but I will reopen it for the next 48 hours just to make sure we are good.

Also within the next 48 hours both parties need to respond on if they would like an in-game trial or not. Failure to respond to this MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION shall result in a warning with contempt.
Click to expand...
48 hours are up!

@Dartanboy you have 72 hours to present your opening statement. I will do the summons for the witnesses shortly.
 

Writ of Summons


@Rory is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of [2025] FCR 98 as a witness.

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.

 
I am present your honour
 
Rory said:
I am present your honour
Click to expand...
Roger that please stand by (it will be a few days we just started opening statements)
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, there isn't much to say. The Defense affirmed every single fact except for Fact 6, which stated that the Defense did not intend to comply with the court's order.

This is either an immense oversight by the Defense Team, or an outright lie, although admittedly I cannot tell which, because simply viewing Exhibit P-002, we can see the Secretary explaining "We can't pay you out..."

The Court already ordered $2,790,000 to be unfined to me. The DHS refused to comply.

As for the legal fees, how much value do you think an order to pay money is? It is precisely the amount of money ordered. If the Commonwealth wishes to avoid legal fees, I'm more than happy to settle for $2,790,000 but they have made it clear to me that they aren't interested in that.

I know this is a bit informal, but frankly I'm just flabbergasted that they think they can get away with simply refusing a court order.

Thank you.

 
@Mask3D_WOLF the commonwealth has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.
 
My apologies, I was not given a notification for this. Could the Commonwealth please have a 36 hour extension?
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

In this case, we will seek to prove that the Commonwealth of Redmont is not liable for the debts of private citizens, and cannot simply poof money out of thin air to cover such.

The Commonwealth of Redmont did, in fact, intend to comply with the court order. It was unable, however, as it simply does not have authorization to cover private citizens' debts. I could intend to water the tomatoes, but be unable to due to a lack of a watering can. This is a strangely simple concept to be contested in this court.

Regarding legal fees, the plaintiff does not appear to know the actual criteria for calculating them. Legal fees are to be based on the award actually granted upon the completion of a civil case. Once again, the courts are not granting $2,790,000 to the plaintiff if they were to win. The courts would merely be compelling the Commonwealth to act on the court order in question under the court's interpretation.

Thank you.
 
@Dartanboy you may ask your questions to the witness @Rory.

@Mask3D_WOLF the court requests a brief from the Commonwealth on the status of Naezartheus' funds, who is the current guardian of these funds, the balance of any of Naezartheus' funds or properties from the date that the verdict in FCR 32 was written (September 12, 2025), and what funds have been paid since that verdict's date. This will help the court tremendously. Due to the complexity of this, I request this information in 7 days or an answer as to what is or is not possible to report on.
 
I will contact the DHS to request this information.
 
@Dartanboy do you have any questions for the witness?
 
ameslap said:
@Dartanboy do you have any questions for the witness?
Click to expand...
Your honor,

I apologize for the delay as I found myself out of town this weekend. I have questions written on my computer at home, but won't be back until Monday.

Could I have an extension until then?
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor,

I apologize for the delay as I found myself out of town this weekend. I have questions written on my computer at home, but won't be back until Monday.

Could I have an extension until then?
Click to expand...
Sounds good
 
The Department of Homeland Security states the following:

"Naezartheus has no funds nor assets at all. $47,000 was paid towards the db:VG debt (So $14,256,691 of debt remaining), and the full $2,790,000 to JusticeCompass in legal fees is remaining."

If this is insufficient I would be happy ot go back and request more.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
The Department of Homeland Security states the following:

"Naezartheus has no funds nor assets at all. $47,000 was paid towards the db:VG debt (So $14,256,691 of debt remaining), and the full $2,790,000 to JusticeCompass in legal fees is remaining."

If this is insufficient I would be happy ot go back and request more.
Click to expand...

My chambers please…
 
Questions for @Rory

1. In the past, has the DHS (or formerly, the DoJ) processed fines for individuals who did not have sufficient balance to pay them by having a record of how much these individuals owed and fining them whenever their balance was sufficient?

There are follow-up questions.
 
@Rory please answer the questions within the next 24 hours. I am giving this extension due to the forums being out due to the cloudfire thingy.
 
@Dartanboy @asexualdinosaur

Given the resignation of Judge Ameslap, I'll be your presiding officer. I see no outstanding motions or objections. Rory still has until ~ 19 hrs to respond.
 
Muggy21 said:
@Dartanboy @asexualdinosaur

Given the resignation of Judge Ameslap, I'll be your presiding officer. I see no outstanding motions or objections. Rory still has until ~ 19 hrs to respond.
Click to expand...
I am no longer employed by the DOJ, please ensure they have a proper representative here. Thank you
 
Dartanboy said:
Questions for @Rory

1. In the past, has the DHS (or formerly, the DoJ) processed fines for individuals who did not have sufficient balance to pay them by having a record of how much these individuals owed and fining them whenever their balance was sufficient?

There are follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
Yes this is correct.
 
@Dartanboy You said you had additional questions?
 
Rory said:
Yes this is correct.
Click to expand...
2. When this happened in the past, did this prohibit the DHS from processing unfines?
3. Has the DHS processed any unfines for the verdict of [2025] FCR 32?
4. If #3 is yes, which unfines have been processed?
5. If #3 is yes, to what extent have all unfines been processed?
 
Dartanboy said:
2. When this happened in the past, did this prohibit the DHS from processing unfines?
3. Has the DHS processed any unfines for the verdict of [2025] FCR 32?
4. If #3 is yes, which unfines have been processed?
5. If #3 is yes, to what extent have all unfines been processed?
Click to expand...
2. This is still done with anyone who doesnt have the correct ammount of money for a fine to this day.
3. I believe so
4. As far as I know, only a small bit of the unfine to VG
5. Only 47,000 has been paid
 
@Mask3D_WOLF Any questions on cross for this witness?

Otherwise, the trial will be concluded on 11/24/25 @ 1pm EST and we will move to Closing Statements.
 
No questions.
 
@Dartanboy @Mask3D_WOLF

We shall now proceed to Closing Statements.

Plaintiff shall have 72 hours and Defendant shall have 72 Hours after Plaintiff's submission.
Extensions during this period will be granted, just ask!
 
Your Honor, it has been almost 120 hours.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Your Honor, it has been almost 120 hours.
Click to expand...

Plaintiff's submission would be untimely at this point. Did the CW want to be heard on Closing?

The CW otherwise has 11/29/25 @ 8:40pm EST for its Closing.
 
Your honor,

We were under the impression the court was on holiday for Thanksgiving. We kindly request a 24h extension.
 
Muggy21 said:
@Mask3D_WOLF Any opposition?
Click to expand...
Your Honor, the deadline for the plaintiff would've fallen before Thanksgiving. In addition, there is no suggestion by this court of a break for Thanksgiving. Extensions for travelling and such should have been requested, not assumed.

While we are disappointed in the untimeliness of the plaintiff, we will leave it up the court as to what to do with this situation. If this extension is granted, however, we request an equal amount of time as the plaintiff has taken to file our own opening statement.
 
@Dartanboy You have until 11/29/25 @ 9PM EST to offer a closing statement
@Mask3D_WOLF You have until 11/30/25 @ 9PM EST to offer a closing statement.
 
@Mask3D_WOLF

I misread your request. Apologies.

The Commonwealth has until December 2nd, 2025 @ 9pm EST to offer a Closing Statement.
 
Muggy21 said:
@Dartanboy You have until 11/29/25 @ 9PM EST to offer a closing statement
@Mask3D_WOLF You have until 11/30/25 @ 9PM EST to offer a closing statement.
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Court procedure and precedent dictate that the defense's closing statements are to follow the plaintiff's.

 
The Commonwealth retracts its objection.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION
Your honor, this case is a simple one.

The following facts are undisputed:
1. On October 26, 2022, the Former Honorable Judge dygyee ordered "the DOJ to fine the NotGamerrr $5,500 and unfine Crxka the same amount"
2. On December 26, 2022, the Former Honorable Judge dygyee ordered the $5,500 to be transferred again due to the Commonwealth failing to action the verdict initially (plus $200 in legal fees), resulting in a total of $11,200 being awarded.
3. On September 12, 2025, the Honorable Judge AmityBlamity issued a verdict in the case of Lawsuit: Adjourned - Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32 [Exhibit P-001]
4. The aforementioned verdict required the Department of Homeland Security unfine Justice Compass $2,790,000.
5. On September 24, 2025, Justice Compass, Ltd. reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, asking when the verdict was going to be actioned.

The following fact is denied, however it is clearly proven in Exhibit P-002:
6. Shortly thereafter, Secretary Angryhamdog informed Justice Compass that they did not intend to follow the court order

FINAL ARGUMENTS
Whether or not your honor agrees with the verdict from FCR 32, it was made by the court and has the full force of the law behind it. As affirmed by the Commonwealth, the verdict required the DHS unfine Justice Compass $2,790,000. To deny this would override the court's previous orders, which cannot be done (only the Supreme Court can override a Federal Court order).

The Commonwealth has continually refused to obey the Federal Court's order. Sadly, the Commonwealth's refusal is not based on logistics, such as needing to set up a payment plan or figure out how to safely transfer a large sum of cash. The Commonwealth is choosing to deny our right to the money already ordered by the court. This is a refusal that is testing the waters of a dangerous precedent: that the Executive can simply ignore Judicial Authority and do as they see fit, allowing for tyranny. It constitutes a violation of Constitutional Rights, because the Commonwealth has effectively seized - and continues to withhold - $2,790,000 that belongs to Justice Compass.

CONCLUSION
This is not a lawsuit for $2,790,000 - that was already ordered.

This is a lawsuit to ensure the Executive is not permitted to be its own Judge; to ensure the Commonwealth obeys the law.

We ask the Court to compel the Commonwealth to follow through with the already-ordered payment.

Thank you.

 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

Your Honor,

The plaintiff's counsel once again fails to realize that one can intend to do something, but be prevented. In the case in question, the Commonwealth was ordered to unfine the plaintiff an amount as the result of fining the defendant. The Commonwealth is not responsible for private citizens' debts, nor is it authorized to use unappropriated money to cover such. To order the Commonwealth to unfine Justice Compass upwards of 2 million dollars would go against common sense, and would simply not be possible, given the reasons listed earlier.

Once again regarding legal fees, plaintiff has admitted that this is a lawsuit to compel the Commonwealth to action funds, not to grant $2,790,000. Once again, the Legal Damages Act prescribes that legal fees are to be calculated in civil cases as "either the award actually granted if the plaintiff prevails, or the award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails." $2,790,000 would not be actually granted in this case (OED: "give (a right, power, property, etc.) formally or legally to"), as that has been alleged by the plaintiff to have already been ordered in the case in question, even if the Commonwealth is unable to legally action the court order at this time. Legal fees, therefore, should not be granted.

 
Thank you,

Court is in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - Justice Compass, Ltd. v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98


Summary of Controversy
Plaintiff approaches the Court seeking compensatory relief from Defendant’s deliberate failure to abide with a ruling of this Court. Defendant responds in opposition stating that all avenues have been exhausted for the collection of the debts owed to Plaintiff from a previously deported player.

Opinion of the Court

  1. Remarks on the Constitution
    The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land governing Redmont; All powers and responsibilities of each constituent branch arises from its prose. It enshrines three arms of government, Congress, the Courts, and the Executive along with the Charter of Rights and other provisions. Under a purely textual reading of the Constitution, the Commonwealth is not subject to any suit and lacks any provision permitting any private right to action against the Government, at least with an originalist viewpoint; Thus, nothing in the constitutional text creates an inherent private right to sue the Commonwealth for a civil wrong (R. Const §32 (4) generally provides for all judicial actions against criminal actions). The only constitutional remedy actionable against the Government is impeachment (see Const § 45). Impeachment is a political and institutional remedy, and nothing within its structure or purpose suggests the existence of a parallel civil cause of action against the Government. (e.g. The Impeachment Act § 4 (2) bars the Courts from interfering with a politician and institutional process, thus precluding any inference of judicial involvement during such actions). Considering the breadth of our precedential history with civil actions against the Commonwealth, undoubtedly this right exists, if so where?

    Thus, to determine whether the Commonwealth may bear responsibility for an alleged failure of government action, one must examine the constitutional allocation of authority to the Executive and Legislature, as these branches alone define the permissible reach of state power. It is through their enumerated powers that the Constitution regulates how the Commonwealth acts and what obligations it owes. For example, the Executive is charged with the administration and enforcement of the law, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary (Const § 23). Generally, the President is explicitly responsible for the execution and enforcement of the law (Const § 24). In our common law, there are numerous examples of the Courts exercising its powers of equity against officers for constitutional violations (see Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 , The Commonwealth of Redmont v. WackJap [2024] FCR 80, AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [2021] SCR 19). Likewise, our common law shows multiple instances of the Government itself being liable for torts arising from constitutional violations (see FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1, FishyFish879 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 100, nnmc v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 15). However, these suits are all concerned with affirmative government action undertaken under the Government’s own directive, where the Commonwealth or its officers were the direct actors responsible for the violation. In each instance, liability flowed from the State’s exercise of its own power, whether through unlawful arrests, wrongful seizures, unconstitutional detentions, or improper administrative conduct. By contrast, the present case involves not affirmative misconduct, but the alleged failure of the Commonwealth to obtain payment from a defendant who is no longer within its jurisdiction.

    When DHS acts on a verdict of the Courts, it does so with the richness of state power, as authorized by the Judiciary. All exercises of State Power: legislative, executive, or judicial, derive directly from the constitutional structure that allocates and limits those powers. Thus, for this action to succeed, the Constitution itself must permit it.
  2. The Commonwealth enjoys Limited-Scope State Immunity

    Limited-Scope State Immunity applies only to those acts of the Commonwealth that arise directly from powers granted or implied by the Constitution. Congress has the power to make and amend the laws; Congress may not be sued for merely passing a law. Any and all acts of Congress may be challenged for constitutionality, but one may not sue Congress for acting according to the Constitution itself. The Judiciary, tasked with the exercise of judicial power, may itself not be sued for issuing verdicts (see [2025] FCR 84 - Appeal ); It goes without saying that the lower Courts may be challenged on their verdicts up to the Supreme Court, but generally the Courts as a system may not be itself subject to challenge. For the Executive, the President, and all of his or her officers as designated, are empowered with the execution and enforcement of law. If this Court issues a judgment, the Department of Homeland Security is pleased to obey this Court; The Constitution does not grant the Executive the ability to doubt this Court's orders nor to selectively enforce them. Since the enforcement of a money judgment undoubtedly invokes the DHS to use State Power in order to collect funds owed, the Commonwealth itself is exercising powers innately from the Constitution (The enforcement of judgments is an inherent and reasonable right inferred by the Constitution.) Since the Commonwealth utilises State Power as authorized by this Court in Vanguard & Co v. Naezartheus [2025] FCR 32, the Commonwealth itself is not subject to suit when it makes a good-faith attempt to collect funds; That is, a reasonable, non-arbitrary effort that does not require the Executive to pursue futile or impossible enforcement measures.

    This principle, however, must not be understood as granting the Commonwealth a blanket immunity from scrutiny. It does not insulate the government from actions alleging abuses of arrest, unlawful conduct, or violations of constitutional guarantees. Where State Power is exercised in a manner that exceeds lawful authority, is tainted by bad faith, or infringes protected rights, the doors of the Court remain fully open. The limitation I describe applies only to good-faith fiscal collection efforts undertaken pursuant to Vanguard & Co v Naezartheus, as well as other categories of conduct that are inherently immune, such as the passage of laws, the exercise of discretionary law-enforcement powers, or the performance of judicial functions, etc. It does not, however, diminish the judiciary’s role in checking governmental excess, nor does it restrict suits properly brought to challenge abuses of power, unlawful executive action, or violations of constitutional rights. In this case, DHS’s inability to secure payment from a deported defendant falls squarely within this zone of constitutionally protected, good-faith enforcement activity.

    The Court agrees with the learned Dartanboy, counsel for Vanguard and Justice Compass Ltd.; the Federal Court awarded him millions in damages. But a judgment, no matter how sound, cannot conjure what reality will not supply. A court cannot order the sky blue or blood from a stone, for judicial authority reaches only those remedies the law and the world can meaningfully deliver. The Department of Homeland Security did not violate this Court’s order in Vanguard and did not violate Plaintiff’s rights for failing to pay the verdict; DHS’s failure to employ every conceivable enforcement measure does not create a civil right of action against the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth never collected the funds from the FCR 32 Defendant, and did not seize assets as described in the Complaint.
Order of the Court


The Court adjudicates this case as follows:
  1. The prayer for compensatory damages in the amount of $2,790,000 is denied. Defendant, Commonwealth of Redmont, is constitutionally immune from suit.
  2. The prayer for Legal Fees is denied.
  3. This Order does not disturb Plaintiff’s rights to the original award in Vanguard. Nor does it permit the Commonwealth to retain any funds it actually obtains that may be used to compensate Plaintiff. Should Plaintiff later demonstrate that the Commonwealth received funds properly payable to him, this action will not bar further relief; res judicata shall not apply in a future attempt to collect funds support with pecuniary evidence.
So ordered,
Judge Mug

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top