Lawsuit: In Session Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42

F

Franciscus

Citizen
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary
Multiman155
Multiman155
Attorney
Joined
Apr 25, 2025
Messages
89

Case Filing​



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Munkler (Mezimoří Legal Department representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


The Plaintiff, Munkler, brings this case against the Commonwealth of Redmont, alleging multiple violations of constitutional and statutory rights stemming from two arrests by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees. On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff was falsely arrested without any visible wanted status and was later admitted by the arresting officer to have been mistakenly detained. On May 24, 2025, Plaintiff was again arrested and jailed for “10m” without being advised of their Miranda rights prior to being transported for questioning, without being given a fair trial, and without being given sufficient time for counsel—violating constitutional protections under Sections 32(9), 32(15), and 32(17), as well as the Miranda Warning Act. The Plaintiff contends that these actions constituted unlawful seizure and due process violations, and seeks a declaratory judgment, $500 in statutory damages for time unlawfully served, reimbursement of any fines paid, $10,000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment and safety, $7,500 in nominal damages if compensatory damages are denied, and at least $2,000 in legal fees.
Click to expand...


I. PARTIES
1. Munkler
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
  1. On 21 May 2025, Redmont citizen Munkler (“Plaintiff”) was arrested by Department of Homeland Security employee Rubilubi55 (see exhibit P-001).
  2. Upon being arrested, Rubilubi55 told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be charged with “2x murder”.
  3. The Plaintiff told Rubilubi55 that Rubilubi55 had arrested the wrong person; the Plaintiff did not have even any wanted stars displayed (Exhibit P-001).
  4. After hearing this, Rubilubi55 admitted that the Plaintiff had been falsely arrested (Exhibit P-002).
  5. The Plaintiff then conveyed to Department of Homeland Security employee Rubilubi55 that the Plaintiff did not feel safe being in a city where the Plaintiff could be arrested randomly (Exhibit P-003).
  6. Section 32, Clause 15 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
  7. In arresting, transporting, and imprisoning the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025, DHS and its agents did seize the Plaintiff.
  8. Because DHS employe Rubilubi55 arrested the Plaintiff without any legitimate cause (such as a wanted star), this seizure of the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025 was unreasonable.
  9. Three days later, the Plaintiff was arrested by Department of Homeland Security employee PricelessArgari (Exhibit P-004).
  10. PricelessArgari transported the Plaintiff to the jail without reading Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s Miranda rights (Exhibit P-004).
  11. PricelessArgari then created a crime record for the Plaintiff, with a stated reason of “10m”.
  12. Section 32, Clause 9 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[a]ny 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.”
  13. Section 32, Clause 17 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[e]very citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.”
  14. The Miranda Warning Act states that “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.”
  15. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Violent Offences Act.
  16. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Government Service Offenses Act.
  17. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Bank Trespass Act.
  18. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Miscellaneous Offenses Act.
  19. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Trespassing and Theft Offenses Act.
  20. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Verbally Threatening Act.
  21. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Illicit Trafficking Offenses Act.
  22. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Vehicular Offenses Act.
  23. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Animal & Pet Offences Act.
  24. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Health & Medical Offenses Act.
  25. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Accomplice and Conspiracy Offenses Act.
  26. “10m” is not an identifiable crime. It does not inform anyone of the nature of accusations against the Plaintiff, and does not allow the Plaintiff to properly and fairly defend himself against purported criminal allegations.
  27. The Plaintiff was sentenced to 10 minutes in jail without a trial in front of an independent Judicial Officer.
  28. On 24 May 2025, The Plaintiff was not substantially confronted with the evidence against them by officials who had accused the Plaintiff of running afoul of the law, even as the Department of Homeland Security held the Plaintiff in confinement.
  29. On 24 May 2025, The Plaintiff was not permitted sufficient time to consult with counsel for their defense prior to being sent to jail.
  30. The failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to be confronted with the evidence to be used against the Plaintiff, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence, in total amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
  31. The failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to swiftly advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent and that any statement the Plaintiff makes may be used as evidence against the Plaintiff amounts to a violation of the statutory and constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
  32. As a result of these instances, the Plaintiff has lost confidence in the police force, and has suffered a reduced sense of safety while in public (see: Exhibit P-003).


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. As noted in the Facts section of this complaint, Section 32, Clause 9 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[a]ny 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.” However, in this case, no trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer was had, the Plaintiff was not confronted with the evidence against the Plaintiff, and the nature and cause of the accusation was not made clear from the crime logs (“10m” does not describe the crime, but rather the punishment).
  2. Additionally, Section 32, Clause 17 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[e]very citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.” The DHS and its agents ignored all of this, depriving the Plaintiff of their fundamental and well-established constitutional rights.
  3. To uphold these rights, the Miranda Warning Act requires that “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 Defendant and its agents did not timely inform the Plaintiff that they were being charged with any specific offense that exists under the law prior to bringing the Plaintiff to the police station on 24 May, nor did Defendant’s agents timely advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent or that the Plaintiff’s statements may be used against them in a court of law on that same date. In doing so, DHS and its agents have violated the plaintiff’s statutory rights, in addition to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
  4. As stated in Section 4, Clause 2(c) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offenses.” The arrest and subsequent 10-minute sentence of the Plaintiff on 24 May were unlawful, as the crime record provided to the Plaintiff does not note any particular valid charges that were presented or proven. Moreover, the arrest on 21 May was likely unlawful, and resulted in unjust detention along the same lines. These allow for statutory damages to be pursued.
  5. As stated in Section 32, Clauses 14-15 of the Constitution of Redmont, “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[; e]very citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” By arresting, transporting, and imprisoning the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025, even though the Defendant did not commit any crime for which the Plaintiff was arrested and transported, the Defendant and its agents did seize the Plaintiff and deprive the Plaintiff of liberty. Because there was no legal basis for this arrest, the seizure was unreasonable and violated the Plaintiff’s core constitutional rights and principles of fundamental justice.
  6. As a result of the above, the Plaintiff has had diminished the Plaintiff’s ability to freely walk throughout the Commonwealth of Redmont without fear of extralegal action by the Department of Homeland Security. This has caused the Plaintiff to change their behavior and colored their interaction with the DHS relative to what it had been before the false arrest of 21 May 2025. The Legal Damages Act §7(1)(a)(III), acknowledges this sort of incalculable harm, and permits the Plaintiff to seek damages along these lines.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
  1. Declaratory Judgement:
    • The Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the Commonwealth’s actions were unlawful and infringed on the rights of the Plaintiff. In particular, the Plaintiff asks that this Court declare that:
    • The arrest of the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025 described in this Complaint was illegal and violated the Plaintiff’s right against unreasonable seizure as enumerated in Const.§32(15);
    • The Commonwealth failed to timely provide the Plaintiff with notice of the Plaintiff’s rights under the Miranda Warning Act, and thereby did indeed violate the statutory rights of the Plaintiff;
    • The Commonwealth deprived the Plaintiff a fair and speedy trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, did not substantially confront the Plaintiff with the evidence against the Plaintiff, and did not permit the Plaintiff to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defense prior to sending the Plaintiff to prison, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s rights under Const.§32(9);
    • The Commonwealth jailing the Plaintiff for the reason “10m” did not aptly inform the Plaintiff of the reason for the Plaintiff’s detention in prison, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s right to be informed of the reason for a detention under Const.§32(17).
  2. Compensatory damages – statutory damages:
    • $500 in compensatory damages under Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c), which entitles the Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely.
    • Renumeration in full of any fines paid by the Plaintiff following the 21 May 2025 and/or 24 May 2025 arrest of the Plaintiff.
  3. Consequential damages– Loss of enjoyment in Redmont
    • To compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s loss of enjoyment arising from what the Plaintiff acknowledges as repeated violations of the Plaintiff's rights by police, the Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in compensation.
  4. Nominal damages:
    • In the absence of compensatory damages being granted, the Plaintiff seeks $7,500 in nominal damages to acknowledge the violations of the Plaintiff’s rights by the Commonwealth, consistent with the Legal Damages Act.
  5. Legal fees:
    • 30% of the value of this case, with no less than $2,000 in legal fees as mandated by the Legal Damages Act.
Evidence:

1749186305756.png

1749186324155.png

1749186338473.png

1749186353435.png

1749186370737.png

Witness List:
  1. Munkler
  2. PricelessArgari
  3. Rubilubi55
  4. Angryhamdog


1749186753890.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 sixth day of June anno domini two-thousand twenty five.
 
Last edited:
May I file an amicus brief on the applications of the right against unreasonable search and seizure to this case?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
May I file an amicus brief on the applications of the right against unreasonable search and seizure to this case?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor,

The Plaintiff understands that an amicus brief is legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof . As Exhibit P-Z01 shows, however, the individual requesting to submit a brief is an employee of both the Department of Homeland Security (where the individual serves as a Captain) AND the Department of Justice (where the individual serves as a prosecutor).

1749280679444.png
1749280591055.png

While the title "prosecutor" may indicate that one is serving on the side of criminal prosecution, the job description for prosecutors is actually a bit broader. And the DOJ Employment Policy (see: Exhibit P-Z02) does not narrowly define their scope as being limited to criminal prosecution. Rather, it simply states that prosecutors will "respond to all assigned cases" in a better-than-timely manner.

1749281120538.png

Why is this relevant? Well, the Department of Justice uses its prosecutors in order to represent the Commonwealth in civil defense. A recent case with this arrangement includes, for example, Gnomewhisperer and GnomeCorp v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47. In this case, State Prosecutor Sir_Dogeington even submitted the Commonwealth's answer to complaint (see: Exhibit P-Z03) and filed

1749280959353.png

Because the individual requesting to submit an amicus brief is employed by the Department of Justice (c.f. Exhibit P-Z01) as a prosecutor, and the Department of Justice is duty-bound to represent the defendant (the Commonwealth), the Plaintiff notes at this so-called "amicus" brief would come from a lawyer of the same agency that will be charged with defending the Commonwealth.

The Department of Justice can wait until it is summoned and can make these arguments in their initial response to the complaint. We needn't breach this court's common procedure by allowing an individual employed as a DOJ attorney provide a brief here as an amicus when the DOJ is going to be doing the defending.

In short: The defendant has not been summoned, and the so-called "amicus" brief comes from an individual who works as an attorney in the executive branch agency that will be required to defend the Commonwealth. All together, this amounts to a breach of procedure; the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor sustain an objection to the submission of an amicus brief by a DOJ-employed lawyer in this case involving the Commonweealth's actions (and/or those of the Commonwelath's employees)..

 

Writ of Summons


@juniperfig is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42.

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.

 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor,

The Plaintiff understands that an amicus brief is legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof . As Exhibit P-Z01 shows, however, the individual requesting to submit a brief is an employee of both the Department of Homeland Security (where the individual serves as a Captain) AND the Department of Justice (where the individual serves as a prosecutor).

View attachment 55886View attachment 55885

While the title "prosecutor" may indicate that one is serving on the side of criminal prosecution, the job description for prosecutors is actually a bit broader. And the DOJ Employment Policy (see: Exhibit P-Z02) does not narrowly define their scope as being limited to criminal prosecution. Rather, it simply states that prosecutors will "respond to all assigned cases" in a better-than-timely manner.

View attachment 55888

Why is this relevant? Well, the Department of Justice uses its prosecutors in order to represent the Commonwealth in civil defense. A recent case with this arrangement includes, for example, Gnomewhisperer and GnomeCorp v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47. In this case, State Prosecutor Sir_Dogeington even submitted the Commonwealth's answer to complaint (see: Exhibit P-Z03) and filed

View attachment 55887

Because the individual requesting to submit an amicus brief is employed by the Department of Justice (c.f. Exhibit P-Z01) as a prosecutor, and the Department of Justice is duty-bound to represent the defendant (the Commonwealth), the Plaintiff notes at this so-called "amicus" brief would come from a lawyer of the same agency that will be charged with defending the Commonwealth.

The Department of Justice can wait until it is summoned and can make these arguments in their initial response to the complaint. We needn't breach this court's common procedure by allowing an individual employed as a DOJ attorney provide a brief here as an amicus when the DOJ is going to be doing the defending.

In short: The defendant has not been summoned, and the so-called "amicus" brief comes from an individual who works as an attorney in the executive branch agency that will be required to defend the Commonwealth. All together, this amounts to a breach of procedure; the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor sustain an objection to the submission of an amicus brief by a DOJ-employed lawyer in this case involving the Commonweealth's actions (and/or those of the Commonwelath's employees)..

Click to expand...
Objection sustained. Working as a prosecutor makes you, Mask3D_WOLF, a possible party to this case. For this reason, your request to file an amicus brief is denied. If you wish to have your arguments presented before the Court, please explain them to your colleagues or present them yourself if you're assigned the case.
 
The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Munkler
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense DENIES that Rubilubi55 admitted that the Plaintiff had been falsely arrested.
2. The defense DENIES that because DHS employee Rubilubi55 arrested the Plaintiff without any legitimate cause (such as a wanted star), this seizure of the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025 was unreasonable.
3. The defense DENIES that PricelessAgrari transported the Plaintiff to the jail without reading Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s Miranda rights.
4. The defense DENIES that on 24 May 2025, The Plaintiff was not permitted sufficient time to consult with counsel for their defense prior to being sent to jail.
5. The defense DENIES that the failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to be confronted with the evidence to be used against the Plaintiff, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence, in total amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
6. The defense DENIES that the failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to swiftly advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent and that any statement the Plaintiff makes may be used as evidence against the Plaintiff amounts to a violation of the statutory and constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
7. The defense DENIES that as a result of these instances, the Plaintiff has lost confidence in the police force, and has suffered a reduced sense of safety while in public.
8. The defense AFFIRMS facts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Rights & Freedoms in the Constitution are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law" (Constitution, §32). One such reasonable limit prescribed by law is that "Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offense can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial" (Standardized Criminal Code Act, §4.3.b). The Plaintiff in their first Claim for Relief alleges that their ninth right as defined in §32 of the Constitution has been breached, however the Plaintiff was never charged with or punished for an Indictable Criminal Offense. Being punished for a Summary Criminal Offense without a trial, confrontation with evidence and assistance of legally qualified counsel does not constitute a breach of the Plaintiff's rights as it falls under a reasonable limit prescribed by law.

2. The Plaintiff's second Claim for Relief alleges that the Commonwealth ignored the Plaintiff's 17th right as defined in §32 of the Constitution, however the Plaintiff was informed of the reason for both arrests made against them that have been referred to in the Complaint, as can be clearly seen in the evidence provided by the Plaintiff (P-001, P-002, P-004).

3. The Plaintiff's fourth Claim for Relief alleges that the Plaintiff can pursue statutory damages under the Standardized Criminal Code Act, however the relevant section starts with "If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed..." (Standardized Criminal Code Act, §4.2.c). It is clear that this statement applies conditionally to those cases where an individual has been found to be not guilty of a crime after a punishment has been imposed. As the Plaintiff has not been found not guilty of a crime after a punishment has been imposed, this statute does not apply to the situation at hand.

4. The Plaintiff's fifth Claim for Relief alleges that the Commonwealth breached Plaintiff's rights by arresting them without legal basis, however the Commonwealth did not arrest the Plaintiff without legal basis.

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 twelfth day of June 2025

 
We will now enter discovery which shall end 5 days from the time of this post.

Discovery may end early upon agreement of both parties.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatory:

  1. Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional interrogatories.

 
Last edited:
Your honor,

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of requests for discover

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following items from the Commonwealth:

  1. Copies of any logs held by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, or any other relevant Commonwealth agency describing any of the following actions between and including 21 January 2025 and 24 May 2025:
    1. Arrests of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    2. Jailing of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    3. Fining of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth as punishment for a crime;
    4. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a killer;
    5. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a victim;
  2. Timestamps and date stamps for any item requested in Request No. 1 above.
  3. Any lists or documentation of arrests, imprisonments, and/or criminal fines performed by Rubilubi55 between and including 20 May 2025 and 22 May 2025.
  4. Any and all interface screens used by any Department of Homeland Security employee to identify wanted players for arrest.
  5. Any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that was valid on either or both of the dates 21 May 2025 and 24 May 2025.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the original complaint by appending the following individual, who leads the Department of Homeland Security, to the Witness List:

  • Angryhamdog

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the original complaint by appending the following individual, who leads the Department of Homeland Security, to the Witness List:

  • Angryhamdog

Click to expand...
Granted.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following additional interrogatories, which shall be answered by the Commonwealth within 48 hours:

  1. What specific statutory offense did the Commonwealth charge the Plaintiff with with respect to the alleged crime recorded in Crime Record 7667 (c.f. Exhibit P-005)?
  2. With respect to the alleged crime recorded in Crime Record 7667 (c.f. Exhibit P-005), how many seconds did the Commonwealth provide the Plaintiff between being read the Plaintiff's rights under the Miranda Warnings Act and actually sending the Plaintiff to jail for that crime?
  3. What is the legal basis for the Commonwealth agent Rubilubi55 having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
  4. Did, following to the arrest of the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025, any agent of the Department of Homeland Security apologize to the Plaintiff for having falsely arrested the Plaintiff?



Moreover, Your Honor:
Franciscus said:
Your honor,

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of requests for discover

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following items from the Commonwealth:

  1. Copies of any logs held by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, or any other relevant Commonwealth agency describing any of the following actions between and including 21 January 2025 and 24 May 2025:
    1. Arrests of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    2. Jailing of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    3. Fining of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth as punishment for a crime;
    4. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a killer;
    5. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a victim;
  2. Timestamps and date stamps for any item requested in Request No. 1 above.
  3. Any lists or documentation of arrests, imprisonments, and/or criminal fines performed by Rubilubi55 between and including 20 May 2025 and 22 May 2025.
  4. Any and all interface screens used by any Department of Homeland Security employee to identify wanted players for arrest.
  5. Any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that was valid on either or both of the dates 21 May 2025 and 24 May 2025.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks a court order to compel the Commonwealth to provide the following information in the quoted message within discovery. It has been 32 hours, and the Commonwealth has neither objected to the request nor indicated that it will abide by it.

The Plaintiff believes that the information sought will will provide information that can speak to whether the arrest on 21 May and arrest on 24 May were (un)reasonable, including information regarding for how wanted players are identified, whether the Plaintiff was actually wanted, and if any lawful basis existed for these arrests.

 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatory:

  1. Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional interrogatories.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor,

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), “Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked.” 48 hours have come and gone. The Commonwealth, with all its resources, has simply failed to respond as required.

Moreover, The Commonwealth in this case has failed for multiple days to participate in the discovery process at all. They have not objected to any request for discovery, nor provided timely any information requested in line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), nor asked for any extension before the period requiring a response ended.

The Commonwealth was recently given a "one and only warning" for this exact behavior pattern by the Federal Court. Specifically, this warning was given on 6 June 2025 at 3:50 P.M. EDT in Federal Court case Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51. That warning was backed up with a simple promise by the Courts: failure to swiftly provide a respose would result in a default judgement against the Commonwealth.

And it's not as if Commonwealth's counsel is unaware of the warning: Solicitor General gribble19 has participated in [2025] FCR 51 both before (see: Exhibit P-G01) and after (see: Exbhibit: P-G02) the Judge's warning was issued. Solicitor General Gribble19 is aware of the warning, and is doubtlessly aware of the required timeline for response to interrogatories.

Alas, the Commonwealth is unacceptably repeating this exact sort of behavior here, and prior court warnings have been insufficient to have the Commonwealth actually adhere to the timelines laid out in Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories).

For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks the court to enter a default judgement in this case against the Commonwealth, and to hold Solicitor General gribble19 (Commonwealth's representative in this case) in contempt for knowingly failing to provide timely responses in line with court rules.

Gribble participated before the warning was issued
1749929157977.png
Example of Gribble's continued participation after having received the warning
1749929282256.png

 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatory:

  1. Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional interrogatories.

Click to expand...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY

1. As can be seen in exhibit P-002, the recruit stated that "it was your head but another name" and then let the Plaintiff go freely.
 
gribble19 said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY

1. As can be seen in exhibit P-002, the recruit stated that "it was your head but another name" and then let the Plaintiff go freely.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth was asked "Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely". The Commonwealth is non-responsive here; the Commonwealth is merely stating that a statement was made ("it was your head but another name"), and then an action was taken ("then let the Plaintiff go freely").

But this does does not answer why the Plaintiff was let go; it provides no reason for the action directly.

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth "must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability" this question. And the Commonwealth, whose very agent freed the Plaintiff, should very well be able to speak to the why rather than providing a non-responsive answer that adds no new information to this case.

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor,

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), “Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked.” 48 hours have come and gone. The Commonwealth, with all its resources, has simply failed to respond as required.

Moreover, The Commonwealth in this case has failed for multiple days to participate in the discovery process at all. They have not objected to any request for discovery, nor provided timely any information requested in line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), nor asked for any extension before the period requiring a response ended.

The Commonwealth was recently given a "one and only warning" for this exact behavior pattern by the Federal Court. Specifically, this warning was given on 6 June 2025 at 3:50 P.M. EDT in Federal Court case Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51. That warning was backed up with a simple promise by the Courts: failure to swiftly provide a respose would result in a default judgement against the Commonwealth.

And it's not as if Commonwealth's counsel is unaware of the warning: Solicitor General gribble19 has participated in [2025] FCR 51 both before (see: Exhibit P-G01) and after (see: Exbhibit: P-G02) the Judge's warning was issued. Solicitor General Gribble19 is aware of the warning, and is doubtlessly aware of the required timeline for response to interrogatories.

Alas, the Commonwealth is unacceptably repeating this exact sort of behavior here, and prior court warnings have been insufficient to have the Commonwealth actually adhere to the timelines laid out in Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories).

For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks the court to enter a default judgement in this case against the Commonwealth, and to hold Solicitor General gribble19 (Commonwealth's representative in this case) in contempt for knowingly failing to provide timely responses in line with court rules.

Gribble participated before the warning was issuedView attachment 56098
Example of Gribble's continued participation after having received the warningView attachment 56099

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, a Breach of Procedure "Occurs when a party violates court procedures, policies, or prior directions from the presiding judge" (Guide - Objections) and "Motions are actionable under the methods provided within the thread Guide Motions Guide" (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 6.4). The Guide - Motions lists the types of motions that exist in our court. A Motion for Default Judgement is not one of the motions that is listed on the list of motions in the motions guide, and the motion that has been made by the Plaintiff therefore violates court procedures and policies.

 
Franciscus said:
Your honor,

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of requests for discover

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following items from the Commonwealth:

  1. Copies of any logs held by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, or any other relevant Commonwealth agency describing any of the following actions between and including 21 January 2025 and 24 May 2025:
    1. Arrests of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    2. Jailing of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    3. Fining of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth as punishment for a crime;
    4. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a killer;
    5. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a victim;
  2. Timestamps and date stamps for any item requested in Request No. 1 above.
  3. Any lists or documentation of arrests, imprisonments, and/or criminal fines performed by Rubilubi55 between and including 20 May 2025 and 22 May 2025.
  4. Any and all interface screens used by any Department of Homeland Security employee to identify wanted players for arrest.
  5. Any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that was valid on either or both of the dates 21 May 2025 and 24 May 2025.

Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1. The Commonwealth's logging of every Arrest, Jailing, Fining and murder case solved is publicly available in the #logging channel of the Department of Homeland Security's discord server. As the Plaintiff can therefore access these logs themselves, there is no reason for the Commonwealth to provide the requested items.
2. See above, the logging that is publicly available contains date and time stamps.
3. The Defendant does not see how this information is relevant to the case and objects to this request.
4. The Defendant is in the process of retrieving this information and will submit it as evidence once it has been retrieved.
5. The Defendant is not currently aware of any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that were valid on either or both of the dates 21 may 2025 and 24 may 2025.

 
The Defense enters the following piece of evidence:


D-001munklervcw.png
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor,

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), “Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked.” 48 hours have come and gone. The Commonwealth, with all its resources, has simply failed to respond as required.

Moreover, The Commonwealth in this case has failed for multiple days to participate in the discovery process at all. They have not objected to any request for discovery, nor provided timely any information requested in line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), nor asked for any extension before the period requiring a response ended.

The Commonwealth was recently given a "one and only warning" for this exact behavior pattern by the Federal Court. Specifically, this warning was given on 6 June 2025 at 3:50 P.M. EDT in Federal Court case Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51. That warning was backed up with a simple promise by the Courts: failure to swiftly provide a respose would result in a default judgement against the Commonwealth.

And it's not as if Commonwealth's counsel is unaware of the warning: Solicitor General gribble19 has participated in [2025] FCR 51 both before (see: Exhibit P-G01) and after (see: Exbhibit: P-G02) the Judge's warning was issued. Solicitor General Gribble19 is aware of the warning, and is doubtlessly aware of the required timeline for response to interrogatories.

Alas, the Commonwealth is unacceptably repeating this exact sort of behavior here, and prior court warnings have been insufficient to have the Commonwealth actually adhere to the timelines laid out in Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories).

For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks the court to enter a default judgement in this case against the Commonwealth, and to hold Solicitor General gribble19 (Commonwealth's representative in this case) in contempt for knowingly failing to provide timely responses in line with court rules.

Gribble participated before the warning was issuedView attachment 56098
Example of Gribble's continued participation after having received the warningView attachment 56099

Click to expand...
Motion denied. The warning in Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont was more than likely specifically for that case.

Regardless, I will issue a similar warning. I understand the Commonwealth is busy - both with in-game and real life matters - but please request an extension if you're not sure you'll respond in time. Failure to meet another deadline will result in sanctions. (To be determined, but it'll likely be a Default Judgement.)
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth was asked "Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely". The Commonwealth is non-responsive here; the Commonwealth is merely stating that a statement was made ("it was your head but another name"), and then an action was taken ("then let the Plaintiff go freely").

But this does does not answer why the Plaintiff was let go; it provides no reason for the action directly.

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth "must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability" this question. And the Commonwealth, whose very agent freed the Plaintiff, should very well be able to speak to the why rather than providing a non-responsive answer that adds no new information to this case.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The Defense is directed to state a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top