Lawsuit: Pending MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 58

[Dartanboy]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff requests all "realtor-only" auctions be paused for the duration of this lawsuit.

This lawsuit will contend that the policy creating these auctions establishes inequality under the law, a violation of Constitutional rights.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

 

[Dartanboy]

Consent

Spoiler: Retainer

 

[zLost]

That's so true MrFluffy2u94

 

[zLost]

and Fartanman

 

[Dartanboy]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MrFluffy2U94 (Justice Compass Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Plaintiff, a citizen of Redmont, was perusing real-estate auctions in the DC Discord, and some properties caught his eye: r-002 and r-037. He went to bid, and realized the Realtor profession was required to make a bid.

Not realizing this was already illegal, and only considering this a minor annoyance, the Plaintiff went to the university to get the Realtor profession, only to find another injustice: the Commonwealth had closed the Realtor exam, effectively preventing the Plaintiff from engaging in this auction.

I. PARTIES
1. MrFluffy2U94 (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. MrFluffy2U94 is a citizen of Redmont.
2. The Constitution guarantees that “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”
3. Citizens who are not realtors have been unfairly and unequally removed from “realtor-only” auctions. (Exhibit P-001)
4. R-002 and r-037 have been put up as a Realtor Only Auction. (Exhibit P-002)
4. Citizens who are not realtors have no way of becoming realtors at this time. (Exhibit P-003, P-004)
5. DCT Deputy Secretary Superior informed the Plaintiff “It's for people who are already realtor” referring to a realtor-only auction. (Exhibit P-005)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Constitutional Right Violation 1 – 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

The Plaintiff, MrFluffy2U94, is being forced out of a government-sponsored auction based on his profession, which is unequally treatment and unfair discrimination.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1.”Realtor-only” auctions be removed from DCT policy.
2. The r-002/r-037 auction be restarted as an auction which anyone can bid in.
3. The Government provide an announcement apologizing for the unconstitutional policy and action.
4. $50,000 in Punitive Damages for making the unconstitutional policy, acting on the unconstitutional policy, and then blocking the Realtor exam, preventing the Plaintiff from becoming a Realtor and rising well beyond the threshold required to be outrageous conduct.
5. $7,500 in Nominal Damages if Punitive Damages are not awarded.
6. $15,000 (or $6,000 if Punitive damages are not awarded) in Legal Fees payable to the business JusticeCompass, per the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-001”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-002”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-003”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-004”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit P-005”

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 7th day of June 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@juniperfig is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 58

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.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff requests all "realtor-only" auctions be paused for the duration of this lawsuit.

This lawsuit will contend that the policy creating these auctions establishes inequality under the law, a violation of Constitutional rights.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

View attachment 55905

Emergency Injunction is Granted. All Realtor only auctions are hereby frozen for the duration of this case.

That's so true MrFluffy2u94

and Fartanman

zLost is also held in Contempt of Court for their outburst in this case.

 

[gribble19]

The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.

 

[ko531]

The Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide their answer to complaint.

 

[ToadKing]

Answer to Complaint

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

MrFluffy2U94
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRMS, MrFluffy2U94 is a citizen of Redmont.

2. AFFIRMS, The Constitution guarantees that “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”

3. DENIES, Citizens who are not realtors have been unfairly and unequally removed from “realtor-only” auctions. (Exhibit P-001)

4. AFFIRMS, R-002 and r-037 have been put up as a Realtor Only Auction. (Exhibit P-002)

5. AFFIRMS, Citizens who are not realtors have no way of becoming realtors at this time. (Exhibit P-003, P-004)

6. AFFIRMS, DCT Deputy Secretary Superior informed the Plaintiff “It's for people who are already realtor” referring to a realtor-only auction. (Exhibit P-005)

II. DEFENCES

1. The Defence submits that the DCT's realtor-only auction policy represents a lawful exercise of governmental authority that does not violate the Constitution's equal protection guarantees. Professional qualification requirements have long been recognised as reasonable limitations on participation in specialised activities, distinct from the unfair discrimination prohibited by our Constitution.

2. The distinction between professional requirements and unlawful discrimination is fundamental to this case. When the government requires legal qualifications to practice law or medical licenses to treat patients, it creates permissible classifications based on expertise and public safety. Similarly, requiring realtor certification for participation in certain property auctions serves legitimate governmental interests. The Constitution prohibits "unfair discrimination" - not all distinctions between citizens. Professional licensing creates classifications that serve important purposes: ensuring competence, protecting public interests, and maintaining standards within specialised fields. These requirements apply equally to all citizens who wish to enter these professions, and no court has ever held that such professional requirements violate equal protection principles.

3. This understanding finds strong support in a previous court judgement. In totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40, the District Court definitively established that auction restrictions constitute enforceable "reasonable limitations." The court explicitly held that "every citizen is entitled to equal protection and benefit therefore if an auction is open to the public [...], they must allow all citizen to bid unless prescribed by reasonable limitation." Significantly, the court recognised that "guidelines are a reasonable limitation as how almost identical guidelines in DCT and DOC auctions are also reasonable limitations." This directly validates the DCT's authority to impose professional requirements on auction participation. Moreover, the DCT operates within express statutory authority granted by Congress. The Property Standards Act, Section 4(1), provides that the DCT "shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law" regarding property matters. The Realtor Benefit Resolution creates a realtor licensing system granting exclusive professional benefits to licensed realtors. While this resolution does not explicitly mention "realtor only auctions," it establishes the legislative framework for a professional realtor system with specialised privileges that the DCT implements through its regulatory authority.

4. The legislative intent to create distinct professional privileges for realtors is further evidenced by the Property Standards Act, Section 17(7), which grants realtors the ability to "exceed these limitations by 5 plots each" beyond standard ownership limits. This provision, requiring excess plots be held "for the purpose of reselling the plot within 30 days of purchasing the plot," demonstrates Congressional recognition that realtors serve a unique market function requiring enhanced property rights. The 30-day resale requirement shows Congress was concerned about "fake realtors" - citizens obtaining the qualification just to own more plots. This same concern justifies realtor-only auctions: both policies ensure only genuine professionals receive special privileges. Congress chose to give realtors enhanced rights through multiple laws - this is deliberate policy, not discrimination.

5. The authority of government departments to tailor auction restrictions to their specific regulatory needs finds further support in the distinct approaches taken by different agencies. While both DOC and DCT maintain general auction guidelines reserving the right to "restrict individuals ability to participate within this service," each department exercises this discretion differently based on their unique mandates. The DOC implements specific rules for mystery box auctions, as seen in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, requiring approval of contents to prevent fraud. The DCT, managing high-value real estate transactions, reasonably requires professional qualifications for certain auctions. This differentiation demonstrates that departments may impose distinct restrictions tailored to their regulatory purposes without creating unconstitutional discrimination.

6. Constitutional precedent firmly establishes that reasonable qualification requirements do not violate equal protection guarantees. In Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 13, the Supreme Court upheld the Department of State's authority to require political parties to demonstrate public support before registration, rejecting claims of discrimination based on social status. The Court held that "having an empirical, objective standard such as five responses is something that is reasonable and does not discriminate against social status." Similarly, requiring realtor certification for specialised property auctions constitutes an objective professional standard that applies equally to all citizens, not discrimination based on protected characteristics.

7. Furthermore, in xEndeavour v. Redmont Bar Association [2021] FCR 89, the Federal Court recognized professional organizations' authority to impose registration requirements on practitioners, holding that "recruitment of the legal profession can be moderated by the RBA through the use of additional requirements." If the legal profession may impose additional requirements beyond passing the bar exam, surely the government may require professional certification for participation in specialised real estate auctions. These precedents establish that professional requirements serving legitimate governmental interests survive constitutional scrutiny.

8. Finally, even accepting the Plaintiff's theory of harm, the Defence cannot be held liable for any alleged constitutional violation. The Plaintiff's own pleadings acknowledge in Fact 5 that "Citizens who are not realtors have no way of becoming realtors at this time" due to the Department of Education's independent decision to close realtor examinations (Exhibits P-003, P-004). This intervening action by a separate government entity breaks any causal connection between the DCT's policy and the Plaintiff's inability to participate in realtor-only auctions. The DCT cannot be constitutionally required to abandon professional standards because another department has temporarily suspended certification processes. To hold otherwise would create an absurd result where one department's policy decisions could invalidate another's lawful regulations, undermining the entire system of professional licensing across government.


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 11th day of June 2025

​

​

Motion

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

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

I. RULE 5.5 - LACK OF CLAIM

1. Plaintiff's Fact 3 alleges citizens "have been unfairly and unequally removed from realtor-only auctions" but provides no evidence that professional qualification requirements constitute "unfair discrimination" under constitutional law. The complaint fails to distinguish between lawful professional requirements and unlawful discrimination.

2. In totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40, the District Court established that "every citizen is entitled to equal protection and benefit therefore if an auction is open to the public [...], they must allow all citizen to bid unless prescribed by reasonable limitation." The court explicitly held that "[...] guidelines are a reasonable limitation as how almost identical guidelines in DCT and DOC auctions are also reasonable limitations."

3. Plaintiff's Fact 5 acknowledges the DCT Deputy Secretary correctly informed him the auction is "for people who are already realtor" - demonstrating this is a clear professional qualification requirement, not arbitrary exclusion.

4. [2024] DCR 40 found a constitutional violation only because "Due to the plaintiff not violating the Guidelines, the limitation given to him is not reasonable and therefore unconstitutional." Here, the Plaintiff acknowledges he does not meet the realtor qualification (Facts 4-5) but provides no evidence that the qualification itself is unreasonable.

5. Federal Court precedent establishes that Rule 5.5 requires evidence of alleged harm to be presented at the complaint stage, not during trial. In CrackedAmoeba1 v. JoanM999 [2024] FCR 35, the Federal Court dismissed a defamation case under Rule 5.5, holding: "no proof was shown that there the actions did in fact harm their reputation. While this could yes be proven later on within the trial, if its not presented at the start where the evidence of the alleged slander has been presented, I am to assume there was no harm done to the reputation." The court emphasized that "the law defines slander as harm needing to be done to then pursue damages" and concluded that "lack of presentable harm" defeats the entire claim under Rule 5.5.

6. Applying this evidentiary standard to constitutional claims, Plaintiff presents no evidence at the complaint stage demonstrating that professional qualification requirements for auctions constitute unconstitutional discrimination. Like the Plaintiff in [2024] FCR 35 who failed to show the required reputational harm for defamation, Plaintiff here fails to show the required constitutional harm from DCT's policy. Under the [2024] FCR 35 standard, this evidentiary failure at the outset defeats the claim under Rule 5.5.

7. The causal connection between DCT's auction policy and Plaintiff's alleged constitutional injury is legally insufficient. Plaintiff's Fact 4 establishes that "Citizens who are not realtors have no way of becoming realtors at this time" due to exam closure by the Department of Education (Exhibits P-003, P-004). This admission demonstrates that DCT's auction policy is not the proximate cause of Plaintiff's exclusion from realtor-only auctions.

8. The Department of Education's independent decision to close realtor examinations constitutes an intervening cause that breaks the causal chain between DCT's policy and any alleged harm. Even if DCT's auction policy were eliminated entirely, Plaintiff would remain unable to participate in realtor-only auctions because the DOE - a separate government entity with independent authority - has made realtor certification impossible. The constitutional injury Plaintiff alleges (exclusion based on professional qualification) flows directly from DOE's examination closure, not from DCT's policy requiring existing qualifications.

9. This causal defect is fatal to the constitutional claim. Courts cannot hold the DCT liable for constitutional violations when the alleged harm stems from another agency's independent exercise of regulatory authority. To permit such claims would create perverse incentives, allowing plaintiffs to forum-shop and hold one department liable for another's policy decisions. The law requires a direct causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the alleged constitutional injury - a connection that DOE's examination closure definitively severs.

II. RULE 5.11 - IMMUNITY PROTECTION

10. Under the Property Standards Act, Section 4(1), the DCT "shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law" regarding property matters. This statutory delegation creates immunity when the DCT exercises this express regulatory authority.

11. The Realtor Benefit Resolution, Section 3(2), grants the DCT statutory authority over realtor licensing: "The Realtor License may be revoked by the DCT for misuse of the Realtor license." This delegation creates immunity for DCT actions regarding realtor-related policies.

12. [2024] DCR 40 explicitly held that "Aventura's Auction Guidelines are enforceable" and established that authorities have broad discretion to establish reasonable limitations, stating: "As the DCT and DOC have almost identical guidelines for auctions [...] and courts time and time again have enforced them, I must do the same for Aventura's Guidelines as they are under the same laws."

13. The DCT's official Eviction Auction Policy expressly establishes "Realtor-only Auctions" where "Only those with the Realtor profession will be allowed to participate." The DCT auction guidelines reserve the right to "restrict individuals' ability to participate within this service." This express reservation, similar to those recognised in [2024] DCR 40 as enforceable, creates statutory immunity for participant restriction decisions made within delegated authority.

III. RULE 5.12 - LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

14. Under Rule 2.1, to pursue this case Plaintiff must prove: (a) suffered some injury caused by a clear second party, (b) the cause of injury was against the law, and (c) remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision. Plaintiff meets element (a) but fails elements (b) and (c), defeating standing.

15. Element (a) - Plaintiff suffers injury (exclusion from auctions) caused by the DCT's realtor-only auction policy. This element is satisfied.

16. Element (b) - The cause of Plaintiff's injury is the DCT's lawful exercise of express policy authority. The DCT's official Eviction Auction Policy explicitly establishes "Realtor-only Auctions" where "Only those with the Realtor profession will be allowed to participate." The DCT reserves authority to "restrict individuals ability to participate within this service." This is a lawful exercise of delegated governmental authority, not conduct "against the law."

17. In [2024] DCR 40, the District Court held that "Aventura's Auction Guidelines are enforceable" because "As the DCT and DOC have almost identical guidelines for auctions in the DC discord and courts time and time again have enforced them." The court recognised that auction participation restrictions are lawful exercises of governmental authority, not violations of law.

18. Element (c) - Plaintiff seeks to compel the DCT to abandon its realtor-only auction policy, but no applicable legal remedy exists. Courts can only compel government agencies to perform acts they are legally obligated to do - here, no law requires the DCT to abandon its policy. Courts can also issue orders to enforce the rights of others - but under [2024] DCR 40, professional qualification requirements for auctions are "reasonable limitations" that are constitutional. Plaintiff has no legal right to participate in realtor-only auctions that a court could enforce. The law expressly authorises the DCT's policy rather than prohibiting it.

19. Even if elements (b) and (c) could be satisfied, Plaintiff's injury remains speculative. Plaintiff's Fact 4 acknowledges they "have no way of becoming realtors at this time" due to exam closure. Any remedy depends on: (1) exams reopening, (2) Plaintiff passing the exam, and (3) obtaining realtor certification. These speculative future events cannot satisfy the concrete injury requirement for standing.

20. In AmityBlamity v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 3, the Plaintiff challenged DHS employment requirements as causing emotional distress. The court dismissed under Rule 2.1, holding that "while the plaintiff may have experienced emotional damages, that injury was not against the law because the claim was based solely on the speech of the announcement." The court emphasised that allowing the case would "jeopardize a core constitutional right" since DHS was exercising lawful authority. Critically, the court noted that if there were "actions connected to this speech" like "a denied application," standing might exist, but since Plaintiff was "only claiming damages on the speech, the injury is not against the law."

21. In YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 34, the Plaintiff challenged DOC's premature auction termination. The court dismissed for lack of standing under Rule 2.1 because Plaintiff "did not allege a violation of law." The court distinguished between policy challenges and legal violations: "The only alleged breach concerns internal department policy, and even then, the Department's own rules expressly permit it to terminate auctions at any time." The court concluded: "Without a legal basis and without outrageous conduct, there is simply nothing for this Court to act upon."

22. Like [2025] DCR 3, Plaintiff here challenges lawful government policy (realtor-only auctions) rather than illegal conduct. Like [2025] FCR 34, Plaintiff alleges only "internal department policy" violations when the DCT's own rules expressly permit restricting participation. Both precedents establish that challenging the lawful exercise of government authority fails Rule 2.1's "against the law" requirement. Plaintiff's injury flows from DCT's authorised policy implementation, not from any violation of law.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defence respectfully moves that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety under:

Rule 5.5 – for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as Plaintiff has not demonstrated any unconstitutional harm nor presented evidence that DCT’s auction policies constitute unlawful discrimination;

Rule 5.11 – due to the DCT’s immunity from liability when acting under express statutory authority in regulating property and realtor-related matters;

Rule 5.12 – for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff fails to show that DCT’s lawful policy, rather than the Department of Education’s independent certification freeze, caused any redressable constitutional injury.

The Plaintiff challenges a lawful and reasonable qualification requirement, not an unconstitutional act. The harm alleged is speculative and disconnected from DCT’s conduct. Precedent clearly supports the dismissal of complaints where no legal violation or presentable harm exists at the pleading stage.

Accordingly, the Defence respectfully requests that this Court grant the motion to dismiss with prejudice, dissolve the Emergency Injunction, and deny the Plaintiff any further relief.

​

​

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, may we respond to the motion to dismiss?

 

[ko531]

Your honor, may we respond to the motion to dismiss?

You may. You have 24 hours to do so

 

[Dartanboy]

You may. You have 24 hours to do so

Your honor, this might be the longest Motion to Dismiss I've ever seen. May we have a 24 hour extension?

Edit: It is also a weekday and this deadline is just half an hour after I get off work. Please allow me to work on this on Saturday.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, this might be the longest Motion to Dismiss I've ever seen. May we have a 24 hour extension?

Edit: It is also a weekday and this deadline is just half an hour after I get off work. Please allow me to work on this on Saturday.

Granted

 

[Dartanboy]

Response

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

ON LACK OF CLAIM
Your honor, we are alleging a Constitutional Violation. The Defense makes strange arguments, which will be addressed:

• "[The Plaintiff] provides no evidence that professional qualification requirements constitute "unfair discrimination" under constitutional law."
  • Your honor, we are arguing that disqualifying citizens from auctions on the basis of their profession (which is also blocked from access) is unfair discrimination under constitutional law. We cannot provide evidence of a legal interpretation. In the same way, I cannot provide evidence that arresting every citizen for nothing is a violation of the right against unreasonable seizure - I can only argue it.
• "The complaint fails to distinguish between lawful professional requirements and unlawful discrimination."
  • I'm not sure what they mean here, but surely locking people out of a profession and then refusing to allow anyone without that profession into an auction is not a "lawful professional requirement."
• "In totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40, the District Court established that "every citizen is entitled to equal protection and benefit therefore if an auction is open to the public [...], they must allow all citizen to bid unless prescribed by reasonable limitation." The court explicitly held that "[...] guidelines are a reasonable limitation as how almost identical guidelines in DCT and DOC auctions are also reasonable limitations.""
  • This is misleading. The court did not rule "guidelines are a reasonable limitation as how almost identical guidelines in DCT and DOC auctions are also reasonable limitations," but that in that case "THESE guidelines are a reasonable limitation as how almost identical guidelines in DCT and DOC auctions are also reasonable limitations" (emphasis added). It is clear that the court was not ruling that across-the-board, all auction guidelines are inherently reasonable, but that the guidelines in that lawsuit were reasonable. This misleading tactic of using partial quotes has been used by the Commonwealth in court before, and I ask the court to see through it.
• " [2024] DCR 40 found a constitutional violation only because "Due to the plaintiff not violating the Guidelines, the limitation given to him is not reasonable and therefore unconstitutional.""
  • This shows that in DCR 40, the individual in question did not violate the Guidelines. This does not create a blanket requirement that the only way to be unconstitutionally excluded from an auction is by following the Guidelines. It is also possible that the Guidelines themselves can be unconstitutional, as they are today.
• "Federal Court precedent establishes that Rule 5.5 requires evidence of alleged harm to be presented at the complaint stage, not during trial. In CrackedAmoeba1 v. JoanM999 [2024] FCR 35, the Federal Court dismissed a defamation case under Rule 5.5, holding: "no proof was shown that there the actions did in fact harm their reputation. While this could yes be proven later on within the trial, if its not presented at the start where the evidence of the alleged slander has been presented, I am to assume there was no harm done to the reputation." The court emphasized that "the law defines slander as harm needing to be done to then pursue damages" and concluded that "lack of presentable harm" defeats the entire claim under Rule 5.5."
  • The Plaintiff has been harmed by being excluded from auctions he wishes to bid on. This has been proven. We don't need to prove reputational harm because we aren't suing for defamation. I'm not sure what the point the Defense is trying to make here.
• "Plaintiff here fails to show the required constitutional harm from DCT's policy."
  • Again, this is not true. We have shown the harm.
• "The causal connection between DCT's auction policy and Plaintiff's alleged constitutional injury is legally insufficient. Plaintiff's Fact 4 establishes that "Citizens who are not realtors have no way of becoming realtors at this time" due to exam closure by the Department of Education (Exhibits P-003, P-004). This admission demonstrates that DCT's auction policy is not the proximate cause of Plaintiff's exclusion from realtor-only auctions."
  • We are not suing the DCT. We are suing the Commonwealth of Redmont. Both the DCT and DoE are part of the Commonwealth itself, and their actions together can constitute a constitutional violation.
• "The Department of Education's independent decision to close realtor examinations constitutes an intervening cause that breaks the causal chain between DCT's policy and any alleged harm. Even if DCT's auction policy were eliminated entirely, Plaintiff would remain unable to participate in realtor-only auctions because the DOE - a separate government entity with independent authority - has made realtor certification impossible. The constitutional injury Plaintiff alleges (exclusion based on professional qualification) flows directly from DOE's examination closure, not from DCT's policy requiring existing qualifications."
  • While the Plaintiff believes the DCT's discrimination against non-realtors is already unconstitutional, the prohibition of becoming a Realtor by the DoE simply cements this fact - they are making guidelines which it is impossible to follow unless you were already a realtor in the past. They're discriminating based on what profession you decided on in the past, not what profession you would like to be now.
• "The law requires a direct causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the alleged constitutional injury - a connection that DOE's examination closure definitively severs."
  • Again, we are not suing the DCT. We are suing the Commonwealth of Redmont. Their argument is literally "Since the Government caused the harm, the Government is not liable."

ON IMMUNITY PROTECTION
There are three main arguments presented here:

• "Under the Property Standards Act, Section 4(1), the DCT "shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law" regarding property matters. This statutory delegation creates immunity when the DCT exercises this express regulatory authority."
  • The Property Standards Act clearly gives this authority to the DCT to establish plot regulations, but banning individuals from an auction is not a plot regulation. Furthermore, even if it was, that doesn't override the Constitution. A more extreme example of the Commonwealth's argument would be "The DHS has the power to arrest people, so you cannot sue us for arresting every single citizen without cause."
• "The Realtor Benefit Resolution, Section 3(2), grants the DCT statutory authority over realtor licensing: "The Realtor License may be revoked by the DCT for misuse of the Realtor license." This delegation creates immunity for DCT actions regarding realtor-related policies."
  • First of all, Resolutions are not even law. It just shows Congressional intent. Secondly, this does not follow AT ALL. Even if we pretend that Resolutions are legally enforceable, this gives the DCT authority to revoke Realtor licenses when they are misused. It does not give broad immunity for all "realtor-related policies" and even if it did, it wouldn't be allowed to override the Constitution, which prohibits such unfair discrimination.
• "[2024] DCR 40 explicitly held that "Aventura's Auction Guidelines are enforceable" and established that authorities have broad discretion to establish reasonable limitations, stating: "As the DCT and DOC have almost identical guidelines for auctions [...] and courts time and time again have enforced them, I must do the same for Aventura's Guidelines as they are under the same laws."
  • This appears to me as a general rule that, similar to department policy, auction guidelines are legally enforceable, but as with any general rules, there is a line somewhere that must be defined. We are arguing that the line is drawn at the Constitutional right against unfair discrimination, and to equal treatment under the law.
• "The DCT's official Eviction Auction Policy expressly establishes "Realtor-only Auctions" where "Only those with the Realtor profession will be allowed to participate." The DCT auction guidelines reserve the right to "restrict individuals' ability to participate within this service." This express reservation, similar to those recognised in [2024] DCR 40 as enforceable, creates statutory immunity for participant restriction decisions made within delegated authority."
  • We are arguing that their policy is unconstitutional. Their policy cannot be used to override the Constitution. This argument is literally "The policy says we have the authority to make this policy."

ON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
The Defense agrees that the Plaintiff has suffered some injury here caused by the Government, which is odd since they also alleged Lack of Claim. These two concepts are mutually exclusive. Seems to me the Commonwealth is throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks.

The remaining two things, which the Defense claims we don't have, are that (Element B) the cause of injury is against the law and (Element C) remedy is available under the law.

For Element B, we see clearly the Constitutional Right that " “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." While the Defense may disagree with this interpretation, that doesn't make this case worthy of dismissal.

For Element C, the courts have the power of Judicial Review. The policy can be struck if it is found unconstitutional by the courts. This is a remedy which is available under the law.

IN CONCLUSION
The Commonwealth has made some bold claims, which are provably false. Some of them are even mutually exclusive. This is a very long Motion to Dismiss, which frustratingly required a long response, despite the Motion having no merit to it whatsoever.

I implore you, Learned and Honorable Judge Ko531, to see through the deceptive tactics of misquotations, circularly-dependent arguments, and even mutually exclusive claims presented by the Defense and overrule the Motion to Dismiss.