Lawsuit: Pending LuccaVG v. Department of Homeland Security

[LuccaVG]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

CIVIL ACTION​

LuccaVG
Plaintiff, Pro Se


v.


Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​

On a date presently unknown to me, I was involuntarily teleported directly to the Reveille Police Station in connection with a Department of Homeland Security enforcement action.


I did not request or consent to the teleportation. After arriving at the station, an officer placed me in handcuffs and sent me to prison.


I do not presently remember the exact date, the identity of the arresting officer, the identity of the person who requested or executed the teleportation, or the exact location from which I was teleported. I am also unaware of whether any warrant, court order, or other legal authorization existed for the teleportation.


To the best of my present recollection, I was not informed of my rights before being imprisoned. Because my memory is not conclusive, I do not assert as an established fact that no warning was given. The relevant chat, command, arrest, notification, and departmental logs are controlled by the Defendant or other government and server authorities.


This action does not presently dispute whether the underlying criminal offence occurred. It concerns the method by which I was seized and transported into custody and whether the required arrest information and warnings were provided.


I request discovery identifying the incident, the officials involved, the origin of the teleportation, the authority relied upon, and whether my rights were communicated.

I. PARTIES​

1. LuccaVG is the Plaintiff and is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Department of Homeland Security, hereafter “DHS,” is the Defendant and is responsible for law enforcement and the conduct of its officers and agents.
3. The officer who arrested, handcuffed, or imprisoned the Plaintiff is presently unidentified.
4. The person who requested, authorized, or executed the teleportation is presently unidentified.
5. Any staff member or government employee who executed the teleportation at DHS’s request acted in connection with the Defendant’s enforcement operation.
6. The Plaintiff requests permission to identify additional relevant parties or agents if their identities are established during discovery.

II. JURISDICTION​

1. The District Court has original jurisdiction over arrests, wrongful seizure, public-official misconduct, and minor civil actions whose value does not exceed $120,000.
2. This action concerns an arrest, an alleged unreasonable seizure of the Plaintiff’s person, and alleged misconduct by government officers.
3. The requested monetary relief is below $120,000.
4. The Plaintiff brings this action under the Redmont Civil Code Act.
5. The Plaintiff does not presently know the incident’s exact date because the relevant information is contained in government-controlled records.
6. The Plaintiff only recently became aware that the method of arrest and possible failure to communicate his rights could constitute legal violations.
7. The Redmont Civil Code Act permits civil proceedings to be commenced within four months of the violation or within two months of the plaintiff becoming aware of the violation when awareness occurs outside the ordinary period.
8. The Plaintiff files this action promptly after becoming aware of the potential violations and requests discovery establishing the incident date.

III. STANDING​

1. The Plaintiff suffered an injury through the involuntary exercise of control over his player and location, his transportation directly into police custody, his restraint in handcuffs, and his imprisonment.
2. These actions were performed by DHS officers, government employees, or persons acting at DHS’s request.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that the involuntary teleportation may have been performed without a warrant, court order, consent, or other lawful authority.
4. The Plaintiff further alleges, according to his best present recollection and subject to discovery, that the required explanation of the charge and arrest rights may not have been provided.
5. The Constitution and Redmont Civil Code Act protect against unreasonable seizure and unlawful deprivation of liberty and require lawful government procedure.
6. The Court can remedy the injuries through declaratory relief, nominal damages, consequential damages, punitive damages where justified, a writ of mandamus, and legal fees.
7. The Plaintiff therefore satisfies the standing requirements contained in Court Rule 2.1.

IV. FACTS​

1. On a date presently unknown, the Plaintiff was online on the DemocracyCraft server.
2. The Plaintiff’s precise location immediately before the incident is presently unknown.
3. The Plaintiff does not remember being located at the Reveille Police Station immediately before the incident.
4. A presently unidentified person caused the Plaintiff to be teleported directly to the Reveille Police Station.
5. The teleportation was connected to a DHS enforcement action.
6. The Plaintiff did not request the teleportation.
7. The Plaintiff did not accept a teleportation request.
8. The Plaintiff did not otherwise consent to being transported directly to the police station.
9. The teleportation took control of the Plaintiff’s location and placed him immediately within reach and custody of law enforcement.
10. After the Plaintiff arrived at the police station, a presently unidentified officer placed him in handcuffs.
11. The Plaintiff was subsequently sent to prison.
12. The sequence of events was:

a. involuntary teleportation to the police station;


b. placement in handcuffs; and


c. imprisonment.

1. The Plaintiff does not presently know who requested the teleportation.
2. The Plaintiff does not presently know who approved the teleportation.
3. The Plaintiff does not presently know who executed the teleportation.
4. The Plaintiff does not presently know who placed him in handcuffs.
5. The Plaintiff does not presently know who executed the imprisonment command.
6. No warrant or court order authorizing the teleportation was shown to the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff does not presently know whether a warrant or court order existed.
8. The Plaintiff does not presently know what statute, policy, command authority, or departmental procedure was relied upon.
9. The Plaintiff does not remember being informed before imprisonment of the specific offence for which he was arrested.
10. The Plaintiff does not remember being told that he had the right to remain silent.
11. The Plaintiff does not remember being told that statements he made could be used as evidence against him.
12. Because the Plaintiff’s recollection is incomplete, paragraphs 42 through 44 state his honest present recollection rather than an absolute assertion that no warning occurred.
13. The Plaintiff presently knows of no independent witnesses to the incident.
14. DHS maintains or has access to records documenting criminal charges, fines, arrests, imprisonments, officer activities, and enforcement actions.
15. Server or staff records may document teleportation commands, command executors, coordinates, times, and reasons.
16. Chat and notification records may establish whether the Plaintiff was informed of the offence, reason for arrest, right to remain silent, and potential evidentiary use of statements.
17. The information necessary to identify the date, participants, authority, and arrest procedure is therefore principally or exclusively within the possession or control of the Defendant, its employees, government agents, or server administration.
18. The Plaintiff requests discovery of those records and reserves the right to amend the Complaint during discovery where permitted by the Court Rules.
19. The Plaintiff does not presently ask the Court to reverse the underlying criminal charge merely because of the alleged procedural violations.
20. The Plaintiff challenges the allegedly unauthorized method of obtaining physical custody and the possible failure to provide mandatory arrest notice and warnings.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

COUNT I — VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS​

1. The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53.
2. Part XI, Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act establishes a civil violation where a person acting under colour of law deprives another of rights secured by the Constitution.
3. The persons who requested, authorized, or conducted the Plaintiff’s transportation and detention acted under colour of law because they exercised government enforcement authority or privileged powers for a government arrest.
4. Constitution Section 35(14) guarantees every citizen the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and prohibits deprivation of those rights except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
5. Constitution Section 35(15) guarantees every citizen security against unreasonable search or seizure.
6. Constitution Section 35(17) guarantees every citizen the right to be informed of the reason for an arrest or detention.
7. A government action that involuntarily takes control of a citizen’s location and transports that citizen directly into police custody constitutes a seizure of the person.
8. The Plaintiff was deprived of liberty when he was involuntarily transported, restrained, and imprisoned.
9. The Judicial Standards Act provides a warrant process through which the Commonwealth may obtain judicial authorization to perform an act that would otherwise be unconstitutional.
10. Upon information and belief, the Defendant may have conducted the teleportation without obtaining such authorization.
11. The Plaintiff cannot conclusively establish whether authorization existed until the Defendant produces its records.
12. If the teleportation was conducted without a warrant, court order, consent, statutory authority, or other lawful justification, it constituted an unreasonable seizure and a deprivation of liberty inconsistent with fundamental justice.
13. If the Plaintiff was not informed of the reason for his arrest, the Defendant additionally deprived him of the right protected by Constitution Section 35(17).
14. The Defendant is therefore liable for violation of constitutional rights if discovery establishes the absence of lawful teleportation authority or the failure to communicate the arrest reason.

COUNT II — DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS​

1. The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 67.
2. Part XI, Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act establishes denial of due process where a government officer or body makes a decision affecting a plaintiff’s rights or interests and:

a. fails to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard; or


b. fails to follow procedures required by law.

1. The decisions to transport, restrain, and imprison the Plaintiff directly affected his liberty and legal interests.
2. The Miranda Warning Act requires every citizen charged with an offence to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence.
3. The Miranda Warning Act also requires the citizen to be informed without unreasonable delay of the right to remain silent and that any statement made may be used as evidence.
4. To the best of the Plaintiff’s present recollection, these procedures were not completed before he was imprisoned.
5. The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant produce any message, notification, command, or record showing that the required information was communicated.
6. If the required information was not communicated without unreasonable delay, the Defendant failed to follow procedures required by law.
7. Such failure would constitute denial of due process under Part XI, Section 6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

COUNT III — FAILURE TO PERFORM STATUTORY DUTY​

1. The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76.
2. Part XI, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act establishes a civil violation where a government officer or body negligently fails to perform a duty required by law and that failure causes harm to the plaintiff.
3. The Miranda Warning Act imposed a statutory duty upon the persons responsible for charging and detaining the Plaintiff.
4. That duty included communicating:

a. the specific offence;


b. the right to remain silent; and


c. the warning that statements may be used as evidence.

1. According to the Plaintiff’s present recollection, those duties may not have been performed.
2. The alleged failure caused harm by subjecting the Plaintiff to detention and imprisonment without understanding the stated legal basis for the action or the rights available to him.
3. If discovery confirms the omission, the Defendant committed a failure to perform statutory duty.

VI. RELEVANT PRECEDENT​

1. In Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17, the Federal Court held that arresting a person without informing that person of the offence and required rights violated the Miranda Warning Act.
2. The Court in that case distinguished the procedural violation from the validity of the underlying criminal charge.
3. The Plaintiff similarly does not rely solely on the alleged Miranda violation to establish that the underlying offence was unproven.
4. The Plaintiff relies on the precedent for the separate proposition that failure to provide the required notice and warning is itself unlawful and may support civil relief.
5. In AlexanderLove v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, the Federal Court distinguished the validity of an underlying wanted status from an unlawful method used to execute an arrest.
6. The Court found constitutional violations where an officer used an unauthorized method to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual without obtaining the required warrant.
7. That precedent supports the principle that the existence of grounds for an arrest does not automatically legalize every method used to seize the person.
8. The Plaintiff acknowledges roy405 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] FCR 42.
9. In roy405, the Court dismissed the teleportation claim because:

a. the teleport took control of the plaintiff while the plaintiff was outside Redmont;


b. constitutional protections did not attach at that location;


c. a court warrant authorized the enforcement operation; and


d. the actual arrest occurred after the plaintiff arrived within Redmont.

1. The present case cannot presently be resolved under roy405 because the Defendant has not produced:

a. the location from which LuccaVG was teleported;


b. the teleportation record;


c. any warrant or judicial authorization; or


d. the identities and stated authority of the persons involved.

1. The Plaintiff requests discovery of those facts before the Court determines whether roy405 controls this action.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Declare that involuntarily teleporting a citizen directly into police custody without consent, warrant, court order, or other lawful authority constitutes an unreasonable seizure and unlawful deprivation of liberty.
2. If supported by the produced records, declare that the Defendant violated Constitution Section 35(17) and the Miranda Warning Act by failing to inform the Plaintiff of the reason for arrest, the right to remain silent, and the potential evidentiary use of statements.
3. Award $7,500 in nominal damages for the establishment of a violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights where no larger compensable loss is proven.
4. Award $5,000 in consequential damages for the humiliation, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment associated with being involuntarily transported, restrained, and imprisoned without the required process, if established on the balance of probabilities.
5. Award $10,000 in punitive damages if discovery establishes that an official intentionally, recklessly, oppressively, or through gross negligence used privileged government powers without lawful authorization or knowingly omitted mandatory arrest procedures.
6. Issue a writ of mandamus requiring DHS to provide the Plaintiff with the complete information available concerning:
   
   a. the date and time of the incident;
   
   b. the criminal charge;
   
   c. the arresting officer;
   
   d. the person who requested and executed the teleportation;
   
   e. the location from which the Plaintiff was teleported;
   
   f. the authority relied upon; and
   
   g. whether and how the required arrest warning was communicated.
7. Order DHS to preserve all relevant arrest, teleportation, command, chat, notification, fine, imprisonment, and internal communication records pending final resolution of this action.
8. Permit the Plaintiff to amend the parties, facts, claims, evidence list, and requested relief during discovery as authorized by the Court Rules, to the extent the amendments are based on newly produced information and do not contradict facts already submitted.
9. Award the Plaintiff applicable legal fees as a successful pro se litigant.
10. Grant any other lawful relief the Court considers just and equitable.

VIII. EVIDENCE​

The Plaintiff presently lacks screenshots conclusively identifying the date, officers, command executor, or warning procedure.


The Plaintiff identifies the following evidence expected to exist and requests its production during discovery:

1. P-001 — DHS arrest and imprisonment records involving LuccaVG.
2. P-002 — DHS criminal-charge and fine records involving LuccaVG.
3. P-003 — Teleportation, command, moderation, or staff records involving LuccaVG.
4. P-004 — In-game chat and notification records from the incident.
5. P-005 — Internal DHS messages, logs, reports, tickets, or radio communications concerning the incident.
6. P-006 — Any warrant, court order, policy, or authorization relied upon.
7. P-007 — Records identifying the origin coordinates of the teleportation.
8. P-008 — Records identifying the arresting officer and the persons who requested, approved, or executed the teleportation.
9. P-009 — Plaintiff’s own sworn testimony regarding his recollection of the incident.

The Plaintiff will label and directly upload the produced evidence to the forum during discovery as required by Court Rule 4.6.

IX. WITNESSES​

The Plaintiff presently identifies:

1. LuccaVG, Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff intends to identify and announce the following witnesses during discovery if their identities are produced:

1. The arresting officer.
2. The DHS employee who requested the teleportation.
3. The person who authorized the teleportation.
4. The person who executed the teleportation.
5. The DHS records custodian responsible for the relevant arrest and enforcement records.
6. Any staff member responsible for maintaining or interpreting teleportation and command logs.

No independent eyewitness is presently known to the Plaintiff.


By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties for lying before the Court and that I may be subject to perjury if I knowingly make a false statement.


DATED: This 21st day of July 2026.


LuccaVG
Plaintiff, Pro Se

 

[LuccaVG]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY​

LuccaVG
Plaintiff


v.


Department of Homeland Security
Defendant


The Plaintiff respectfully requests production of the following relevant material under Court Rule 4.7.


The Plaintiff does not possess the exact date or identities associated with the incident. The requested records are necessary to identify the event described in the Complaint and are believed to be within the possession or control of the Defendant or accessible to the Defendant through its official duties.

I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION​

1. Every DHS record involving LuccaVG that documents an arrest, handcuffing, imprisonment, criminal charge, fine, or outstanding fine during the six months preceding this filing.
2. Every record identifying an incident in which LuccaVG was teleported directly to the Reveille Police Station and subsequently placed in handcuffs or imprisoned.
3. All records showing the exact date and time of that incident.
4. All records showing the location and coordinates from which LuccaVG was teleported.
5. All records identifying the DHS employee who requested the teleportation.
6. All records identifying the person who approved or authorized the teleportation.
7. All records identifying the person who executed the teleportation.
8. All staff, moderation, server, administrative, or command logs documenting a teleportation command involving LuccaVG in connection with the arrest.
9. The complete arrest report relating to the incident.
10. The complete charge and punishment record relating to the incident.
11. All DHS logs, tickets, reports, radio communications, messages, and internal discussions concerning the arrest and teleportation.
12. Any warrant or court order relied upon to authorize the teleportation, arrest, handcuffing, or imprisonment.
13. Every statute, departmental policy, directive, operating procedure, training document, or other authority relied upon to justify teleporting LuccaVG directly to the police station.
14. All available chat, command, notification, or DHS records showing whether LuccaVG was informed of:

a. the specific offence;


b. the reason for arrest;


c. the right to remain silent; and


d. the fact that statements could be used as evidence.

1. Any record showing that LuccaVG requested, accepted, or consented to the teleportation.
2. Any record showing which officer placed LuccaVG in handcuffs.
3. Any record showing which officer or employee caused LuccaVG to be sent to prison.
4. Any record documenting the reason why teleportation was used instead of an ordinary arrest at the Plaintiff’s location.
5. Any record showing whether the Plaintiff was located within Redmont, a constituent territory, PlayerBuildWorld, or another external territory immediately before the teleportation.
6. Any available video, screenshot, chat capture, or contemporaneous report relating to the incident.

II. INTERROGATORIES​

The Plaintiff submits the following five interrogatories under Court Rule 4.8:

1. State the exact date and time of the incident in which LuccaVG was teleported to the Reveille Police Station, handcuffed, and sent to prison.
2. Identify every DHS employee, government employee, and staff member who requested, authorized, executed, or participated in the teleportation, arrest, handcuffing, and imprisonment.
3. State the exact location and coordinates from which LuccaVG was teleported and identify the record supporting that answer.
4. State the precise legal, judicial, departmental, or staff authority relied upon to teleport LuccaVG directly to the police station, and identify any warrant or court order.
5. State whether LuccaVG was informed of the specific offence, reason for arrest, right to remain silent, and potential use of his statements as evidence; if so, identify when, where, by whom, and through what exact message or command each warning was communicated.

III. REQUEST TO AMEND​

The Plaintiff respectfully gives notice that, after the requested records are produced, he may amend the Complaint during discovery to:

1. specify the date and location;
2. identify relevant officials and witnesses;
3. submit produced evidence;
4. particularize the constitutional and statutory claims; and
5. withdraw any allegation that the produced records conclusively disprove.

Respectfully submitted,


LuccaVG
Plaintiff, Pro Se