Lawsuit: In Session lawanoesepr v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 68

U

ultrapvpnoob

Citizen
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Grave Digger Change Maker Popular in the Polls
ultrapvpnoob
ultrapvpnoob
Attorney
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
126

Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION


lawanoesepr (Represented by Justita Legal Group)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Plaintiff, lawanoesepr, brings this case against the Commonwealth of Redmont, alleging multiple violations of constitutional and statutory rights, unlawful detention, violation of due process rights, and abuse of executive authority. The Plaintiff was forcibly transported, jailed, and later removed from their job as a doctor without hearing or explanation, resulting in permanent blacklisting. No due process was followed, violating Sections 32(9), 32(14), 3(15), and 32(17) of the Constitution, as well as the Miranda Warning Act. The Plaintiff contends that these actions constituted unlawful due process violations, and seeks a declaratory judgment, $1,750 in statutory damages for time unlawfully served, reimbursement of any fines paid, $15,000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment and safety, $7,500 in nominal damages if compensatory damages are denied, $15,000 in punitive damages due to the outrageous conduct of the and and 30% of the total case value in legal fees.

I. PARTIES
1. lawanoesepr (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)



II. FACTS
1. On June 30th, Redmont Citizen lawanoespr (“Plaintiff”) was at spawn while affected
by a disease and actively spreading it.
2. The Plaintiff was cuffed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Angryhamdog.
3. Angryhamdog then proceeded to drag the plaintiff to the police station without being
informed of any charges.
4. Secretary Angryhamdog stated, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and
subsequently attempted to cure the Plaintiff at the hospital. (see exhibit P-001)
5. After failing to cure the Plaintiff, Angryhamdog arbitrarily subjected the Plaintiff to a
status of “permanent detention,” disabling the Plaintiff’s teleport, access to
commands, chat, and general gameplay, effectively restricting the Plaintiff’s freedom
without due process. The Plaintiff was detained for a total of 35 minutes. (see exhibit
P-002)
6. Angryhamdog than proceeded to free the Plaintiff and again attempted to cure the
Plaintiff together with Secretary of Health Kay_Jee and Doctor Talion77. (see exhibit
P-003)
7. After failing to cure the Plaintiff, Angryhamdog told Kay_Jee to fire the Plaintiff from
their position as Doctor, to remove their door access and thus locking the Plaintiff in
the room.
8. The Plaintiff remained in detention for approximately 30 minutes due to the slowed
release mechanic caused by leaving the prison area, despite never having been
formally charged or convicted of any crime.
9. The Plaintiff suffered damages including, reputational harm, and lost
business time and revenue.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of Section 32(9) of the Constitution which states

"Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence."
Click to expand...

Plaintiff was not given the right to due process before being 'detained indefinitely'

2. Violation of Section 32(14) of the Constitution which states
"Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
Click to expand...
Plaintiff was deprived of liberty and employment without due process of law.

3. Violation of Section 32(15) of the Constitution which states
"Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure"
Click to expand...
The actions of the defendant constitute seizure, and this seizure was unwarranted.


3.Violation of Section 32(17) of the Constitution which states
"Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them."
Click to expand...
Plaintiff was not informed of the reason for their arrest.
4. Violation of Part 3, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act – Police Misconduct. Plaintiff was jailed for more than the 10 minutes issued by law for reckless spread of disease, and in fact was not informed that this was the charge they were being arrested for

5. Violation of Part 4, Section 5 of the Criminal Code Act - Deprivation of Liberty. Plaintiff had their freedom taken away due to the abuse of power by the defendant.

6. Crimes can be used as justification for civil damages under the Criminal Code Act 1.6.1.a

7. Violation of the Miranda Warning Act which states that police officers must tell the detainee of the specific offense that they committed



IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $50 per minute the plaintiff spent in jail under the Criminal Code act for a total of $1,750 in compensatory damages
2. $15,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous conduct of the defendant, who as the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should be held to a much higher standard
3. $15,000 in consequential damages for the loss of enjoyment in Redmont, due to the fact that the plaintiff had their rights violated by the police multiple times
4. If compensatory damages are not awarded, the Plaintiff requests $7,500 in nominal damages under the Legal Damages Act to recognize the Commonwealth’s violation of the Plaintiff’s rights.
5. 30% of the case value in legal fees

We also request a declaratory judgement stating that the actions of the DHS secretary were unlawful and infringed on the rights of the plaintiff. Specifically, we request that it be declared that arrest without stating the reason of the arrest and without opportunity to challenge the arrest violates the rights given in the Constitution.

V. EVIDENCE

1751493753473.png
1751493808579.png
1751493840813.png

Witnesses:
Masked3D_Wolf
Talion77
Angryhamdog
Kay_Jee

1751494140857.png
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 July 2025

 

Writ of Summons


@gribble19 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of lawanoesepr v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 68

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.

 

Motion


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

The Defendant moves the Complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.4 of our Court Rules and Procedures.

A Motion to Dismiss may be filed against an incorrectly filed case if another court should have original jurisdiction (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 5.4). The District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont has original jurisdiction over minor civil cases whose value does not exceed more than $50,000 dollars (Constitution, §16.(1).(e)), as well as over arrests (Constitution, §16.(1).(a)) and wrongful seizure (Constitution, §16.(1).(b)). As this is a civil case with a total case value below $50,000, regarding arrests and alleged wrongful seizure, the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont has original jurisdiction over this case.

 
May we respond to the motion to dismiss, your Honour?
 

Response


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

Your honor,

If you add up all of the prayer for relief in the original complaint, you get (15000+15000+1750+7500)*(130%)=$51,025, which is more than the $50,000 jurisdiction of the District Court. As it is a civil case worth more than $50,000, the proper jurisdiction is the Federal Court.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

The Defendant moves the Complaint in this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.4 of our Court Rules and Procedures.

A Motion to Dismiss may be filed against an incorrectly filed case if another court should have original jurisdiction (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 5.4). The District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont has original jurisdiction over minor civil cases whose value does not exceed more than $50,000 dollars (Constitution, §16.(1).(e)), as well as over arrests (Constitution, §16.(1).(a)) and wrongful seizure (Constitution, §16.(1).(b)). As this is a civil case with a total case value below $50,000, regarding arrests and alleged wrongful seizure, the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont has original jurisdiction over this case.

Click to expand...
Motion to dismiss denied. The value of this case does exceed $50,000.
 
The commonwealth has 48 hours to provide an answer to complaint.
 
ko531 said:
Motion to dismiss denied. The value of this case does exceed $50,000.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

Your Honor, looking at what the Plaintiff has explained in their response to the motion more in-depth, it is clear that the total value of the case does not exceed $50,000. They have multiplied the value of the case by 1.3 in order to account for legal fees, however that is not appropriate. Legal Fees are specifically defined in statue to be 30% of the total value of a case (Legal Damages Act, §9.2.(c)). They therefore cannot possibly be part of the total value of a Case, this would lead to recursive calculations being necessary and surely this can not be the intent of the law. It would furthermore mean that all legal fees have been miscalculated by the Court up until now.

Even if this weren't the case, the Plaintiff also includes both the nominal damages, and the other damage types in the calculations. However, nominal damages cannot be granted in combination with other damages (Legal Damages Act, §6.(1).(a)) and therefore either the nominal damages, or the other damages can be granted. Taking both into account when determining the total value of the case falsely inflates the number and will set a precedent that will cause cases to unnecessarily fall under jurisdiction of higher courts, unduly increasing pressure on the courts.

The Defendant respectfully requests this decision be reconsidered in line with the above.

 
Your honor, may we respond?
 

Response



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

Your honor,

Even if the defense argues that legal fees should not be included in the sum of damages, this case deals with questions of constitutionality. According to the constitution, the‌ ‌Federal ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌has original jurisdiction over‌ questions of constitutionality. This case deals with the constitutionality of the defendant’s actions, meaning that this is still the correct court for this case to be filed in.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, looking at what the Plaintiff has explained in their response to the motion more in-depth, it is clear that the total value of the case does not exceed $50,000. They have multiplied the value of the case by 1.3 in order to account for legal fees, however that is not appropriate. Legal Fees are specifically defined in statue to be 30% of the total value of a case (Legal Damages Act, §9.2.(c)). They therefore cannot possibly be part of the total value of a Case, this would lead to recursive calculations being necessary and surely this can not be the intent of the law. It would furthermore mean that all legal fees have been miscalculated by the Court up until now.

Even if this weren't the case, the Plaintiff also includes both the nominal damages, and the other damage types in the calculations. However, nominal damages cannot be granted in combination with other damages (Legal Damages Act, §6.(1).(a)) and therefore either the nominal damages, or the other damages can be granted. Taking both into account when determining the total value of the case falsely inflates the number and will set a precedent that will cause cases to unnecessarily fall under jurisdiction of higher courts, unduly increasing pressure on the courts.

The Defendant respectfully requests this decision be reconsidered in line with the above.

Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider Denied.

Even if the case doesn't reach the $50,000 threshold, the defense is alleging 4 different right violations meaning this case is questioning the constitutionality of the commonwealth's actions on multiple levels and the federal court has original jurisdiction over these type of cases.
 
The Commonwealth respectfully requests a 24 hour extension to provide an answer to complaint.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. AFFIRM that on June 30th, Redmont Citizen lawanoespr (“Plaintiff”) was at spawn while affected by a disease and actively spreading it.
  2. AFFIRM that the Plaintiff was cuffed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Angryhamdog.
  3. AFFIRM that Angryhamdog then proceeded to drag the plaintiff to the police station without being informed of any charges.
  4. AFFIRM that Secretary Angryhamdog stated, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and subsequently attempted to cure the Plaintiff at the hospital. (see exhibit P-001)
  5. AFFIRMS that Angryhamdog failed to cure the plaintiff, and that The Plaintiff was detained for a total of 35 minutes. (see exhibit P-002). WHILE DENYING that Angryhamdog arbitrarily subjected the Plaintiff to a status of “permanent detention,” disabling the Plaintiff’s teleport, access to commands, chat, and general gameplay, effectively restricting the Plaintiff’s freedom without due process.
  6. AFFIRM that Angryhamdog then proceeded to free the Plaintiff and again attempted to cure thePlaintiff together with Secretary of Health Kay_Jee and Doctor Talion77. (see exhibit P-003)
  7. DENY that after failing to cure the Plaintiff, Angryhamdog told Kay_Jee to fire the Plaintiff from their position as Doctor, to remove their door access and thus locking the Plaintiff in the room.
  8. AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff remained in detention for approximately 30 minutes due to the slow release mechanic caused by leaving the prison area, and that Lawanoesepr had not been formally charged or convicted of any crime.
  9. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY That the Plaintiff suffered damages including, reputational harm, and lost business time and revenue.


II. DEFENSES

1. The Miranda Warning Act §3.1 states that:
“(1) Every citizen charged with an offense must:
a. be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense.
b. be advised, without unreasonable delay, that they have a right to remain silent and
that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them.”
The act specifically states that this mandate is only to “Every citizen charged with an
offense”.
2. Therefore the conduct of Angryhamdog is not in violation of the act, as Lawanoesepr was never charged with a crime.
3. The Constitution of Redmont §32.7 states that:
“Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or
arrest made against them.”
As seen in P-003, a reason for jailing was in fact given, therefore Angryhamdog is not in violation of the plaintiff's constitutional right.
4. The detention experienced by the plaintiff was in fact not the sentencing for “reckless spread of disease” as stated by the plaintiff.
5. The detention in question was done in the pursuit of the greater good for the general population, and was in line with Angryhamdog’s duties as a Police official, and therefore can not be classified as an abuse of power that unduly seized the plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff did not open a ticket to consent the detention, as he was informed by Angryhamdog to do. Plaintiff is required to do so, per verdict of xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16, precedent that the Federal Court is bound by.

DATED: This 8th day of July 2025

 
We will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 24 hours starting now.
 
The Defendant respectfully requests an extension of Discovery. 24 hours is an extremely short time for Discovery and does not even allow for Interrogatories, as requests for interrogatories must be filed 72 hours before the end of Discovery (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.8).
 
Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Defendant submits the following request for interrogatory:

1. For how many of the 35 minutes for which the Plaintiff was detained was the Plaintiff logged on?
 
gribble19 said:
The Defendant respectfully requests an extension of Discovery. 24 hours is an extremely short time for Discovery and does not even allow for Interrogatories, as requests for interrogatories must be filed 72 hours before the end of Discovery (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.8).
Click to expand...
Granted. That is my mistake, I meant 5 days. Discovery will be 5 days from my previous message.
 
gribble19 said:
1. For how many of the 35 minutes for which the Plaintiff was detained was the Plaintiff logged on?
Click to expand...
Approximately 28 minutes due to connection issues
 
As discovery is now over. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their opening statement
 

Opening Statement



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

One of the fundamental rights that all humans have is the right to liberty. This right can only be taken away under strict circumstances, such as committing a crime. When a police officer, the head of the Department of Homeland Security no less, arrests a civilian without providing a proper reason or charging them with a crime, there should be consequences. You cannot simply arrest people without going through the necessary steps.

Furthermore, to be deprived of liberty one must be convicted of a crime by Section 32(14) of the constitution which states

(14) Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Click to expand...
However, the defense denies the assertion that the plaintiff committed a crime, instead saying that the reason for the detainment was what was listed in P-003, notably "pandemic-starting-command-disabling-jail"
Now, an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security's own policy, which the secretary should be well acquainted with by now:
INDICTABLE OFFENSES (SERGEANT+ ONLY)
These have to be proved by the courts. If a court order tells you to action a punishment in relation to a case for an indictable offense, please carry it out! :)

SUMMARY OFFENSES
These are the offenses that the Department has jurisdiction over generally. [listed below is a list of summary offenses, required proof for the offense, and a listed punishment for each summary offense]
Click to expand...
Notably absent from the list of summary offenses is "pandemic-starting-command-disabling-jail", which is the reason listed in P-003. I tried to give the defense the benefit of the doubt and assume that they meant to jail the plaintiff for Reckless Spread of Disease, which is a summary offense, however the defense seems to be asserting that that was not the reason for the detainment.

This court will find that the defendant committed multiple egregious violations of the plaintiffs rights, violating sections 32(9), 32(14), and 32(15) of the constitution and the Miranda Warnings Act.

The defense, in their answer to complaint, states that the detainment was “pursuit of the greater good for the general population”. However, this is not a valid reason for detention. One cannot simply act on their own volition to decide what the greater good of the population is. The purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to enforce the criminal laws that are enacted by congress. If I was a police officer and I decided that detaining all bedrock players permanently was for the good of the general population, would I be able to arrest all of them? Of course not, for it is not up to individuals to decide the law for themselves. The defense also states that the plaintiff needed to open a departmental ticket to get their issue resolved. However, this is not a valid argument. Does the court simply accept that one needs to make a request in a government ticket for their rights to not be taken away? Additionally, the precedent listed by the defendant applies only in a state of limited information, where no wrongdoing could have been known to have occurred by the then Department of Justice. In this case, the defendant committed unconstitutional actions with blatant disregard for their harm. In the case Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17, a near identical case to this case, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff and stated that
The Constitution does indeed require a citizen to be informed of the cause and nature of their accusation when accused of a crime. … This is further evident in the Miranda Warning Act, which specifies in no uncertain terms that arrestees must be informed of the specific offense they are being arrested for as well as be informed of the right to remain silent. Without a doubt, the actions taken by the Commonwealth are certainly illegal.
Click to expand...

In conclusion, this court will find that the defendant displayed a blatant disregard for the constitution, civil law, common law, and even the policy of the defendant’s own department. The court will also find that this was not just a simple mistake, it was a series of multiple deliberate decisions that caused immense harm for the plaintiff, and the defendant deserves to be punished accordingly

 
The defense now has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.
 
Your honor,
The defense would like to respectfully request a 24 hour extention for their opening statement.
 
Your Honor,

In the line of duty, law enforcement must make difficult decisions quickly. These decisions, even when not compliant with department policy, must be made to prevent further harm. In the line of duty, Angryhamdog detained the plaintiff. This detention was made in order to protect the public. As seen in the chat logs in P-004, the plaintiff was clearly attempting to cause a mass infection, which both serves as an impediment to the DOH and as a serious cause of harm to the citizens of Redmont. Crimes like these are not as simple as murder; you can't just follow the clues and arrest the bad guy, because in a case like this, even if you charge the perpetrator with the crime, there is little stopping them from continuing to spread the designs. Therefore, in the course of his duty to protect the public, Angryhamdog attempted to cure the plaintiff in order to ensure that they would no longer be a threat to public safety. The detention of Lawanoesepr did not happen in a vacuum; this detention was done in order to prevent the plaintiff from causing more harm to the people of Redmont. As seen in P-004, the plaintiff was more than happy to all but admit to mass spreading a disease and asking Angryhamdog to do things “the hard way.” This case could have been quickly solved with the plaintiff's cooperation and instead turned into a messy affair resulting in a 35 minute detention. While the existence of and the length of this detention remain undisputed, the detention was not done, as the plaintiff claims, "arbitrarily." This detention was clearly done in the interest of the people of Redmont, and through the actions of Angryhamdog and other DOH and DHS staff, the people of Redmont were saved from further harm that the plaintiff was clearly intent on causing.

On Punitive Damages

While the actions committed by Secretary Angryhamdog may not have been compliant with DHS policy and the plaintiff's interpretation of the Miranda Warning Act, we find it absurd to ask for $15,000 in damages. There is no clear precedent for asking for this high of an amount, as even in the case that they reference, Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17, the court awarded $10,000 in punitive damages for the violations of the Miranda Warning Act and Right IX of the Constitution, none of which were in regard to the conduct of the officer on scene.

In Conclusion

The court will find that the plaintiff, despite their innocent framing, is far more guilty than they seem. Even taking into account the alleged misconduct of Angryhamdog, the actions taken by the DHS on that day were clearly done for the good of the people of Redmont.
 

Writ of Summons


@Mask3D_WOLF @Talion77 @KayJee @Angryhamdog is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of lawanoesepr v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 68

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.

 
Present.
 
Present.
 
Present - I would appreciate it if the relevant side is able to send me a DM via discord any time questions are asked to me, as I am currently in another country without a computer. I understand if you are unable to.
 
As all the witnesses are present, the plaintiff has 24 hours to ask their questions
 
Your honor, we would like to request a 24 hour extension.
 
To Talion77:
1. Describe what you saw regarding lawanoesepr on the day of the arrest

To Masked3D_Wolf:
1. What history do you have working in the DHS?
2. Have you ever been involved in a scenario where you had to arrest a disease spreader during your time in the department? If so, please describe what actions you took.
3. What is standard protocol on handling summary offenses such as disease spreading?
4. Are indefinite detentions a common occurrence for the department?

To Kay_Jee:
1. What communications did you have with Angryhamdog during this incident? Was there any actions he recommended or told you to do?
2. What was DoH protocol for dealing with disease spreaders after they have been arrested at the time of this incident?


To Angryhamdog:
1. Describe your position and history within the DHS
2. Do employees at the DHS have the power to arrest people without charging them of a crime?
3. What crime, if any, did you charge lawanoesepr with during this incident?
 
  1. Current DHS Secretary since about a month into the last administration, joined the department in approximately start of march and promoted to PO about a month after that.
  2. To rephrase what this is asking AFAIK, ‘Is it possible that a DHS member can right click to handcuff a player without telling them why’, to which the answer is yes, it is *possible* and permitted by the plugin.
  3. ‘pandemic starting command disabling jail’ was the jail message, I had previously told him that he was detained till he comes to get cured, as far as I remember.
Apologies for bad formatting (mobile-only right now) - thanks ultra for the dm.
 
1. Unfortunately, I cannot recall any events from that day to an amount of detail that answering this question would require.
 
ultrapvpnoob said:
[...]

To Kay_Jee:
1. What communications did you have with Angryhamdog during this incident? Was there any actions he recommended or told you to do?
2. What was DoH protocol for dealing with disease spreaders after they have been arrested at the time of this incident?

[...]
Click to expand...
  1. I first asked Angryhamdog if evidence had been obtained on the matter and then we coordinated the collection of said evidence in a DOH-DHS ticket. During the detention of the plaintiff, Angryhamdog had asked if they could be fired to stop them disrupting hospital operations. This was already my intention, I simply hadn't issued the command.
  2. At the time of the incident, I believe the only explicit mention of a case like this was in our "Situations Guide" which stated the following:
The patient refuses to follow directions with a contagious disease
> If the patient continues to refuse to comply, then contact a Police Officer through /911. This PO will proceed to handcuff the non-compliant player and place them in an exam room. Refusal to drink the cure to a contagious disease may be fined. If no PO is online and this player continues to be a public nuisance intentionally, then gather evidence and open a ticket with the DHS.
Click to expand...
 
ultrapvpnoob said:
To Talion77:
1. Describe what you saw regarding lawanoesepr on the day of the arrest

To Masked3D_Wolf:
1. What history do you have working in the DHS?
2. Have you ever been involved in a scenario where you had to arrest a disease spreader during your time in the department? If so, please describe what actions you took.
3. What is standard protocol on handling summary offenses such as disease spreading?
4. Are indefinite detentions a common occurrence for the department?

To Kay_Jee:
1. What communications did you have with Angryhamdog during this incident? Was there any actions he recommended or told you to do?
2. What was DoH protocol for dealing with disease spreaders after they have been arrested at the time of this incident?


To Angryhamdog:
1. Describe your position and history within the DHS
2. Do employees at the DHS have the power to arrest people without charging them of a crime?
3. What crime, if any, did you charge lawanoesepr with during this incident?
Click to expand...
1. I have been working in the DHS since March of 2022.
2. I have. I detained the offending person to get them treatment and charged them as usual.
3. Detain the person spreading the disease, get them treatment, and charge them as usual.

I request that #4 be rephrased before I respond, due to its vagueness.
 
Does the plaintiff have any follow up questions?
 
To AngryHamdog:
1.Under the law and DHS policy, are DHS employees allowed to arrest someone without the reason for the arrest being a specific crime. By 'reason for the arrest' I am referring to the particular reason that officer chose to use the handcuffs on the player.
2. Is "pandemic starting command disabling jail" a recognized crime?

To Masked3D_Wolf:
Rephrasing of question 4:
Is it common in the DHS to arrest someone without immediate plans to put them into jail for a specific crime


I have no questions for the other 2 witnesses.
 
4. In the case of detention, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top