Lawsuit: Pending lawanoesepr v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 68

[ultrapvpnoob]

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."

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."

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"

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."

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

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Witnesses:
Masked3D_Wolf
Talion77
Angryhamdog
Kay_Jee

Spoiler: representation-statement

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

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[gribble19]

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.

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

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

 

[ko531]

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

You have 24 hours to do so.

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

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.