Lawsuit: Pending Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 39

[ko531]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Respondent as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I am 5.4 Blocks tall. That is what is listed on my government issued passport. The government recognizes that people of my height exist. Yet just about every government building either have main entrances that are too short to accommodate people of my size or have doorways shortly into the building that are too short. What this has done is essentially block me from having access to every government provided service or protected acts by the constitution. Some of the things I am prevented from taking part in include Health Care, Education, Animal Adoption, Mail Services, a large amount of Commerce, Public Transportation, Attending Legislative or Court proceedings and even exercising my right to vote. I believe the Commonwealth has violated multiple of my rights via this act of discrimination.

I. PARTIES
ko531 (Plaintiff)
Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. I am 5.4 blocks tall
2. My Passport has me listed as 5.4 blocks tall (P-001)
3. The main entrances to every hospital including the Reveille Hospital, University Hospital, Esplanade Square Hospital and the Recatraz Hospital are too short for my height which blocks be from accessing healthcare (P-012, P-013, P-014, P-043)
4. The entrance to the DOS building is too short for my height which blocks be from exercising my 2nd Constitutional Right of voting (p-006)
5. The entrances to every educational building including, the University, Museum, National Art Gallery, LilDigiVert Presidential Library, xEndeavour Presidential Library, Westray Presidential Library and the National Archives are too short for my height which blocks me from a proper education. (P-026, P-036, P-037, P-039, P-040, P-041, P-042)
6. Every police station in the city including the Capital Police Station, Henly Police Station, Esplanade Square Police Station and the Northcott Police Station have entrances that are too short for my height blocking me from getting a gun license among other things. (P-015, P-016, P-017, P-018)
7. Every option for public transportation including Buses, Subways, the Airport, Capital Ferry Terminal, Windsor Ferry Terminal and Plam Beach Ferry Terminal are too short for my height which blocks me from all public transportation. (P-019, P-020, P-021, P-022, P-023, P-024)
8. The entrances to the Senate Chambers, House Chambers, Supreme Court Courtroom, Federal Courtroom and District Courtroom are too small for my height which blocks me from attending any legislative or judicial public session. (P002, P003, P-004, P-005, P-027, P-028)
9. My own office in the Federal Court has an entrance that is too short for my height which blocks me access. (P-029)
10. All Government provided areas of Commerce including the Supermarket, every CBD, every NBD, Capital Station and the Dealership have entrances that are too short for my height which blocks me from a large portion of commerce in the city. (P-007, P-008, P-009, P-010, P-011, P-044, P-045, P-046, P-047, P-048, P-049, P-50)
11. Every department building including the DOE, DCT, DOJ, DHS, DOH, DOS, DOI and DOC either have main entrances that are too short or doorways to exit the lobby that are too short for my height blocking me entrance to these buildings. (P-030, P-031, P-032, P-033, P-034, P-015, P-006, P-012)
12. The entrance to the post office is too short for my height which blocks me from using any postal services. (P-025)
13. The entrance to the Animal Shelter is too short for my height which blocks my access to animal services and animal adoption. (P-035)
14. The entrance to the Brown House is too short for my height which blocks my access to the president. (P-039)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Part XI Section 1 of the RCCA for violation of my 13th Constitutional right of "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status." due to the limiting of my access to Public Transportation, Health Care, Postal Services, Education, Animal Adoption and entrance to any other public buildings that others are not denied access to.
   
   
2. Part XX Section 1 of the RCCA for the violation of my 2nd Constitutional right of "The right to vote in elections and referendums, provided the player accrued 6 or more active hours of playtime in the last 30 days at the time of voting." due to my inablility to access the polling place to cast my vote.
   
   

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $25,000 per public building or public services that isn't accessible to people that are 5.4 blocks tall.

Evidence:

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

Spoiler: P-015

Spoiler: P-016

Spoiler: P-017

Spoiler: P-018

Spoiler: P-019

Spoiler: P-020

Spoiler: P-021

Spoiler: P-022

Spoiler: P-023

Spoiler: P-024

Spoiler: P-025

Spoiler: P-026

Spoiler: P-027

Spoiler: P-028

Spoiler: P-029

Spoiler: P-030

Spoiler: P-031

Spoiler

Spoiler: P-032

Spoiler: P-033

Spoiler: P-034

Spoiler: P-035

Spoiler: P-036

Spoiler: P-037

Spoiler: P-038

Spoiler: P-039

Spoiler: P-040

Spoiler: P-041

Spoiler: P-042

Spoiler: P-043

Spoiler: P-044

[/spoiler=P-045]

Spoiler: P-046

Spoiler: P-047

Spoiler: P-048

Spoiler: P-050

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 10th day of May, 2026.

 

[ko531]

Spoiler: P-032

View attachment 82047

Spoiler: P-033

View attachment 82048

Spoiler: P-034

View attachment 82051

Spoiler: P-035

View attachment 82052

Spoiler: P-036

View attachment 82053

Spoiler: P-037

View attachment 82054

Spoiler: P-038

View attachment 82055

Spoiler: P-039

View attachment 82056

Spoiler: P-040

View attachment 82057

Spoiler: P-041

View attachment 82058

Spoiler: P-042

View attachment 82059

Spoiler: P-043

View attachment 82060

Spoiler: P-044

View attachment 82061
[/spoiler=P-045]
View attachment 82062

Spoiler: P-046

View attachment 82064

Spoiler: P-047

View attachment 82065

Spoiler: P-048

View attachment 82066

Spoiler: P-050

View attachment 82067

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

The Commonwealth of Redmont (@Superwoops) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 39.

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.

 

[dearev]

The commonwealth is present your honor.

 

[Franciscus]

The commonwealth is present your honor.

Please present your answer to complaint within 48 hours.

 

[dearev]

​

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, deemed frivolous, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim under Part XI, Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. A constitutional-rights claim requires that the Defendant, “acting under colour of law”, deprived the Plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution.

2. The Complaint does not plead facts showing that the Commonwealth created, assigned, imposed, or controlled the Plaintiff’s height. The Plaintiff relies on their passport listing them as 5.4 blocks tall, but the Department of State has confirmed that passport height is merely a gimmick and does not determine actual player height.

3. The Plaintiff’s actual height is dependent on user supporter status, not Commonwealth action. Because the alleged height condition is not created or imposed by the Commonwealth, the Complaint fails to establish an action under colour of law.

4. The Complaint also fails to plead facts showing that the claims are timely under the RCCA statute of limitations. The Plaintiff does not state when their supporter-status height became active, when they first encountered any alleged access barrier, or when they first became aware of the alleged violation.

5. Evidence available to the defence shows that the Plaintiff has been a supporter since at least August 5, 2023. To the extent the Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged access issue more than four months before filing, the claims are past the statute of limitations.

6. Evidence shows that the Plaintiff was able to receive medical care and enter the hospital. Records provided by the Department of Health prove that the Plaintiff has mischaracterised their access to government services. Between January 10 and May 12, they have been attended to 18 times at a government-run medical facility. Furthermore, one of the medical specialists who last attended to the Plaintiff confirmed that he was indeed inside the hospital to be treated.

6. This case should be deemed frivolous because it rests on non-functional passport features, fails to plead Commonwealth action under colour of law, fails to plead timeliness, and seeks arbitrary damages unsupported by the RCCA.

Thank you.

Spoiler: MTD-1

Spoiler: MTD-2

Spoiler: MTD-3

Spoiler: MTD-4

Spoiler: MTD-5

Spoiler: MTD-6

Furthermore your honor, we request further 48 hours on the Answer to complaint.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

This is at its heart is a civil rights case. My civil rights are violated each and every day and all these claims by the defense in their motion to dismiss are either flat out wrong or are void of proper context.

1. This claim is baseless. The defendant in all nature is "acting under the color of the law" with how they design and build their buildings. There is not a law that outlaws such small ceilings and doorways.

2. This is a complete misunderstanding of my complaint. No where did I allege that the commonwealth forced me to be tall. I am alleging that the Commonwealth is discriminating against me because I am tall. When the commonwealth is unjustly discriminating against a group of people, cause of action does not lie in the idea that the Commonwealth is the reason they belong to that particular group. The passport fact is only there to show that the government is aware tall people exist and yet still discriminates against them.

3. Again, the cause of action does not rely on the commonwealth making me tall, it relies on the idea that the commonwealth is unjustly discriminating against me and devoiding me of my rights by my membership in the class of people who are tall.

4. The statute of limitation argument is nonsensical when it comes to such things as a civil rights case like this one. My rights are violated every single day; I do not give up those rights after four months of not filling a lawsuit. If the commonwealth were to void all rights of bedrockers, do they lose all civil action if they don't file a lawsuit within 4 months after joining the server.

5. Again, my rights are violated every single day by the fact that I can't access just about every government building or service. I do not lose my rights by not filing a lawsuit at the first instants when they were violated. When such a violation isnt a continuous process, a statue of limitations argument might work. It does not work however when the violations of rights are continuous all the way to the present and will continue if the court doesn't stop it.

6. I have received medical care but not without trouble. I can't fit through the main entrance so one of the main ways I have had to enter the hospital is by killing myself as you respawn inside. Yet even when inside I cant access hospital rooms as the doorways are too short and skinny. All treatment is required to be in the lobby which can serve as a public health risk if I am infected with an infectious sickness.

The entirety of the Commonwealths argument in this motion to dismiss would allow my rights to be forever violated on the basis of a class of people I belong to. This would allow for entire classes of people to become less than the average citizen all because they didn't file a lawsuit fast enough. The commonwealth also seems to attack the idea of healthcare while ignoring everything else in the complaint which includes not being able to vote, use public transportation, use postal services, access large areas of commerce or access any other public building.

 

[Franciscus]

Furthermore your honor, we request further 48 hours on the Answer to complaint.

Extension granted.

 

[Franciscus]

​

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, deemed frivolous, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim under Part XI, Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. A constitutional-rights claim requires that the Defendant, “acting under colour of law”, deprived the Plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution.

2. The Complaint does not plead facts showing that the Commonwealth created, assigned, imposed, or controlled the Plaintiff’s height. The Plaintiff relies on their passport listing them as 5.4 blocks tall, but the Department of State has confirmed that passport height is merely a gimmick and does not determine actual player height.

3. The Plaintiff’s actual height is dependent on user supporter status, not Commonwealth action. Because the alleged height condition is not created or imposed by the Commonwealth, the Complaint fails to establish an action under colour of law.

4. The Complaint also fails to plead facts showing that the claims are timely under the RCCA statute of limitations. The Plaintiff does not state when their supporter-status height became active, when they first encountered any alleged access barrier, or when they first became aware of the alleged violation.

5. Evidence available to the defence shows that the Plaintiff has been a supporter since at least August 5, 2023. To the extent the Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged access issue more than four months before filing, the claims are past the statute of limitations.

6. Evidence shows that the Plaintiff was able to receive medical care and enter the hospital. Records provided by the Department of Health prove that the Plaintiff has mischaracterised their access to government services. Between January 10 and May 12, they have been attended to 18 times at a government-run medical facility. Furthermore, one of the medical specialists who last attended to the Plaintiff confirmed that he was indeed inside the hospital to be treated.

6. This case should be deemed frivolous because it rests on non-functional passport features, fails to plead Commonwealth action under colour of law, fails to plead timeliness, and seeks arbitrary damages unsupported by the RCCA.

Thank you.

Spoiler: MTD-1

View attachment 82187

Spoiler: MTD-2

View attachment 82188

Spoiler: MTD-3

View attachment 82186

Spoiler: MTD-4

View attachment 82185

Spoiler: MTD-5

View attachment 82184

Spoiler: MTD-6

View attachment 82183

Denied. Under Rule 5.1, “A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under”. This pleading does not do so. Failure to engage in rule specification is not a trivial matter I will overlook because Court Rules limit the amount of rules under which a Motion to Dismiss may be submitted at one time (see: Rule 5.15). As a result of the glaring procedural issue, the Court does not proceed to a merits analysis, we thus deny the motion.

 

[ameslap]

Answer to Complaint

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

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. DENY.
2. AFFIRM. Noting this is only for gimmicks and not functional.
3. DENY.
4. DENY.
5. DENY.
6. DENY.
7. DENY.
8. DENY.
9. DENY.
10. DENY. Especially noting that P-045 and P-049 is listed in this complaint but not submitted at this time.
11. DENY.
12. DENY.
13. DENY.
14. DENY.

II. DEFENCES​

1. The Plaintiff in reality is 1.8 blocks tall. Their appearance as a 5.4 block tall person relies entirely on a feature not accessible to every player, not created by the Commonwealth, not controlled by the Commonwealth, and not legally imposed by the Commonwealth. D-005 gives evidence from the Department of State that the height listed on a passport is a gimmick and does not determine actual player height. Because the height condition is not created, assigned, imposed, or controlled by the Commonwealth, the Plaintiff has failed to establish Commonwealth action under colour of law. This is consistent with precedent from [2026] FCR 9 that constitutional rights bind government actors and authority, not private or non-governmental conduct.

2. Access to services exists for the Plaintiff. D-001, D-002, and D-003 show that the Plaintiff has been attended to 18 times since January 10, 2026. All of these were done within the hospital. D-004 proves that the Plaintiff can indeed enter the hospital while 5.4 blocks tall. Additionally, there are other alternatives to entering buildings, including methods explained by the Plaintiff, using commands available to all, such as /crawl, and utilising the same command that enabled the Plaintiff to appear 5.4 blocks tall to cosmetically appear as their true height, and more. The Plaintiff has not shown that these alternatives were unavailable, denied, or ineffective.

3. In [2026] FCR 13, the Plaintiff, in their capacity as a Judge, recognised that a Plaintiff must show an injury, that the cause of the injury was against the law, and that the remedy is applicable under the relevant law. Here, the Plaintiff has not identified a statute, building code, regulation, or Commonwealth policy requiring every existing public building to be modified for supporter-only heights.The Plaintiff’s claims would create improper retroactive liability for existing buildings. The Plaintiff has not cited any law or regulation requiring existing public buildings to be retroactively modified to accommodate for every possible height, especially those only accessible to supporters. Many of the buildings were constructed around the actual height of a player and before any claimed obligation to accommodate cosmetic or supporter height features. The Court should not create retroactive civil liability for existing buildings unless there is a clear statutory duty on the Commonwealth.

4. The Plaintiff’s requested relief is an unsupported money grab, not an access remedy. The Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief does not ask the Court to order the buildings fixed, require accommodations, create alternative access, or provide any prospective remedy that would actually address the alleged grievances. Instead, the Plaintiff asks only for $25,000 per public building or public space. This is not aligned with [2025] SCR 12, which states that remedies requested have to be capable of redressing the alleged harm.

Part III, Section 2 requires proof of pecuniary loss and is limited to the actual amount of damages or the authorised statutory limit, whichever is lower.

Part III, Section 4 shows that nominal damages may not exceed $7,500. Section 5 states that damages must be proven on the balance of probabilities and are limited to $50,000 for a single claim unless punitive damages are also awarded.

The Plaintiff has not pleaded actual financial loss, specific consequential harm, or outrageous conduct supporting punitive damages. The requested $25,000 per building or space is arbitrary, unsupported, and shows the Complaint is aimed at extracting money rather than resolving the alleged access issue.

III. EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

By making this submission, I agree that 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 13th Day of May, 2026.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

The Commonwealth respectfully files this Corrected Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, deemed frivolous, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

On Rule 5.5​

1. Under Rule 5.5, the Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sufficient claim under Part XI, Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act. A constitutional rights claim requires that the Defendant, acting under colour of law, deprived the Plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution.

2. The Complaint does not plead facts showing that the Commonwealth created, assigned, imposed, or controlled the Plaintiff’s height. The Plaintiff relies on their passport listing them as 5.4 blocks tall, but the Department of State has confirmed that passport height is merely a gimmick and does not determine actual player height.

3. The Plaintiff’s actual height is dependent on user supporter status, not Commonwealth action. Because the alleged height condition is not created or imposed by the Commonwealth, the Complaint fails to establish action under colour of law.

On Rule 5.10​

1. Under Rule 5.10, the Complaint also fails to plead facts showing that the claims are timely under the RCCA statute of limitations, Part II, Section 6(2). The Plaintiff does not state when their supporter-status height became active, when they first encountered any alleged access barrier, or when they first became aware of the alleged violation.

2. Evidence available to the defence shows that the Plaintiff has been a supporter for a substantial period of time, including supporter-channel communications from approximately two years ago. To the extent the Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged access issue more than four months before filing, the claims are long past the statute of limitations as defined in Part II, Section 6(2)(a).

3. The Plaintiff cannot avoid the statute of limitations by relying on repeated encounters with the same alleged building condition. The Complaint alleges a continuing physical condition involving existing buildings, not new Commonwealth decisions or acts. Once the Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged access issue, the limitations period began to run, and concealing these from the Commonwealth intentionally since at least January 2026 means that this claim should be tolled under Part II, Section 6(2)(b).

On Frivolous in Nature​

1. This case should be deemed frivolous because it rests on non-functional passport features, fails to plead Commonwealth action under colour of law, fails to plead timeliness, and seeks arbitrary damages unsupported by the RCCA.

For evidence of these claims, please refer to D-001, D-002, D-003, D-004, D-005, D-006 in the Answer to the Complaint.

Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Discovery is now open and shall last for 5 days beginning with this message’s posting.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

RULE 5.5
Rule 5.5 requires a lack of a claim. I have fully alleged a claim for the violation of my constitutional rights towards unfair discrimination and my right to vote. What the defense alleges here are either baseless or a complete misreading of my complaint which in all actuality is a civil rights case for people who are on the taller side.

1. This first point is baseless in nature and only states the requirements for the exact claim that I am making. No where does it allege where the deficiencies in my claim are when fulfilling this definition. They admit in this point that a claim of relief is being alleged. They seem to refer that the definition of that claim isnt met but as said fails to state how. Such a decision however on if a claim of relief is met should be decided at verdict with fact finding. Not a motion to dismiss.

2. The bases of my claims are not that the commonwealth made me tall. The bases of my claims are that the commonwealth discriminated against me because I am tall. Alleging something like the discrimination by the commonwealth against a class of people does not rely on the commonwealth being the reason they belong to said class. The harm derives from the commonwealth knowing that such class of people exist and still discriminating against them anyway with how they construct their buildings.

3. This is just a restatement of the second point under 5.5. Trying to apply such logic to cases like this would create absurd precedent. If the commonwealth tomorrow banned all bedrock players from public buildings and services, would there then be no harm as the commonwealth isn't the reason they are playing on bedrock? No, the harm is the unjust discrimination on the bases of class or group of people.

RULE 5.10
Rule 5.10 is an insane and absolutely absurd reason for dismissal in a case like this. The precedent would be wild. Firstly, the discrimination exists to this very day. It is a continuous process and not a single act that can be easily defined by a date. Such a rule 5.10 argument could work if the action by the commonwealth was singular in nature and the harm is not ever lasting. It does not work when that harm is still being felt and enacted.

The precedent a dismissal under this rule would create the potential for different classes of citizens. Going back to the bedrock player example, if a bedrock player doesn't file a case within 4 months of joining the server, do they give up their rights? No, any ongoing denial of rights for certain citizens should never be allowed. Dismissing this case under this rule would allow citizens to forfeit rights if they don't file a lawsuit fast enough

1. The harm is continuous in nature; The harm is not a single act that can be defined by a date so of course I didn't include a date or time. The harm is still persisting, and this court is the only avenue for justice. Otherwise, I will become a second-class citizen on the bases of my height.

2. It does not matter how long I have been tall; it matters if the harm is continuous in nature. There is a legal idea called the Continuing Harm Doctrine which does have precedent in Redmont as seen in DocTheory v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42. The idea is that statute of limitations can be ignored in instances where harm is a continuous process and not a single act so long as the most recent harm is within statute of limitations which for this case it is.

3. The way the commonwealth built their builds does not define a singular act. To this very day I am prevented from tons of buildings or services. The harm is being felt to this day, to treat the building done by the government as a singular act for statute of limitations would equate to treating the hanging of a "No Bedrock Players allowed" sign as a singular act no matter how long the harm is felt for.

For these reasons, dismissing the case under these rules would create absurd and horrific precedent even if they were met, which they aren't. These reasonings do not meet the standard of simple scrutiny let alone are strong enough to warrant any dismissal. I ask the court to deny this motion to dismiss in its entirety.