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

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

The Defense hereby requests copies of all communication and attempted communication between the Plaintiff or counsel representing them and the DHS, DOJ, or Commonwealth before the filing of this case, relating to the matters of this case.

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.

Brief

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

A copy of Commonwealth's communications with Plaintiff should be held by the Commonwealth. As the Plaintiff should easily have had access to these communications themselves, there is no reason for the Plaintiff to provide the requested items. And, on top of that, the Plaintiff posits that this is not relevant to any fact in the complaint.

Moreover, this request came with 12 minutes left in discovery. At least one communication demanding compensation for false arrest is present in P-003, but for me to have time to contact my client would have required more than a measly 12 minutes.

For these reasons, and others similar to those provided by the Defense in a prior response to discovery, the Plaintiff opposes this request in line with Rule 4.7.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Again, the Commonwealth is engaging in Dilatory tactics in violation of Court rules, and also in violation of your Court Order that required the Commonwealth to produce "copies of any and all evidence used or collected by any agent of the Commonwealth that relates to the alleged offenses for which the Plaintiff was arrested by PricelessArgari on 24 May 2025".

As shown in Exhibit D-003, Police Officers are required to file a police report on the DHS forums for "every arrest or traffic stop excluding murders". The format for this report includes a section for "Additional Information (e.g. Proof)", indicating that proof of the alleged bank trespass should be readily available on the forums in a matter accessible to the Commonwealth. But the Commonwealth has not provided any evidence of the alleged crime of bank trespass even though it should simply be present in the related police report, according to the Commonwealth's own procedures. Nor has the Commonwealth provided any statement to the effect that the Commonwealth could not find evidence of the alleged crime, even despite Your Honor already granting an extension to produce this information.

Discovery is now over. Discovery initially was to last 5 days, beginning at 9:55 A.M. EDT on 12 June 2025 and ending at 9:55 EDT on 17 June. A 72-hour extension pushed this to 9:55 A.M. EDT, and a further 24-hour extension then pushed the end of discovery to 9:55 EDT on 21 June. And yet, the Commonwealth has failed to provide this information to the Court, missing yet another deadline.

Let us recall Your Honor's warning to the Commonwealth about sticking to deadlines:

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.)

In light of this, the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor grant Default Judgement in this case, and issue sanctions against the Attorney General (Commonwealth's Counsel) for failing to abide by your order compelling the production of this evidence.

 

[JunkCereal]

Your honor,

Plaintiff requests permission to respond to the motions to dismiss.

You may.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Again, the Commonwealth is engaging in Dilatory tactics in violation of Court rules, and also in violation of your Court Order that required the Commonwealth to produce "copies of any and all evidence used or collected by any agent of the Commonwealth that relates to the alleged offenses for which the Plaintiff was arrested by PricelessArgari on 24 May 2025".

As shown in Exhibit D-003, Police Officers are required to file a police report on the DHS forums for "every arrest or traffic stop excluding murders". The format for this report includes a section for "Additional Information (e.g. Proof)", indicating that proof of the alleged bank trespass should be readily available on the forums in a matter accessible to the Commonwealth. But the Commonwealth has not provided any evidence of the alleged crime of bank trespass even though it should simply be present in the related police report, according to the Commonwealth's own procedures. Nor has the Commonwealth provided any statement to the effect that the Commonwealth could not find evidence of the alleged crime, even despite Your Honor already granting an extension to produce this information.

Discovery is now over. Discovery initially was to last 5 days, beginning at 9:55 A.M. EDT on 12 June 2025 and ending at 9:55 EDT on 17 June. A 72-hour extension pushed this to 9:55 A.M. EDT, and a further 24-hour extension then pushed the end of discovery to 9:55 EDT on 21 June. And yet, the Commonwealth has failed to provide this information to the Court, missing yet another deadline.

Let us recall Your Honor's warning to the Commonwealth about sticking to deadlines:


In light of this, the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor grant Default Judgement in this case, and issue sanctions against the Attorney General (Commonwealth's Counsel) for failing to abide by your order compelling the production of this evidence.

Defendant requests permission to respond to the motion for Default Judgment.

 

[JunkCereal]

Defendant requests permission to respond to the motion for Default Judgment.

You may.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Again, the Commonwealth is engaging in Dilatory tactics in violation of Court rules, and also in violation of your Court Order that required the Commonwealth to produce "copies of any and all evidence used or collected by any agent of the Commonwealth that relates to the alleged offenses for which the Plaintiff was arrested by PricelessArgari on 24 May 2025".

As shown in Exhibit D-003, Police Officers are required to file a police report on the DHS forums for "every arrest or traffic stop excluding murders". The format for this report includes a section for "Additional Information (e.g. Proof)", indicating that proof of the alleged bank trespass should be readily available on the forums in a matter accessible to the Commonwealth. But the Commonwealth has not provided any evidence of the alleged crime of bank trespass even though it should simply be present in the related police report, according to the Commonwealth's own procedures. Nor has the Commonwealth provided any statement to the effect that the Commonwealth could not find evidence of the alleged crime, even despite Your Honor already granting an extension to produce this information.

Discovery is now over. Discovery initially was to last 5 days, beginning at 9:55 A.M. EDT on 12 June 2025 and ending at 9:55 EDT on 17 June. A 72-hour extension pushed this to 9:55 A.M. EDT, and a further 24-hour extension then pushed the end of discovery to 9:55 EDT on 21 June. And yet, the Commonwealth has failed to provide this information to the Court, missing yet another deadline.

Let us recall Your Honor's warning to the Commonwealth about sticking to deadlines:


In light of this, the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor grant Default Judgement in this case, and issue sanctions against the Attorney General (Commonwealth's Counsel) for failing to abide by your order compelling the production of this evidence.

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.

 

[JunkCereal]

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.

Overruled. Though the motions guide gives examples of motions that can be filed, it is not an exclusive list. Motion for Default Judgement is a motion that has been previously filed and ruled on in the courts and has a valid purpose.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:


1. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) states that a defendant may submit a motion to dismiss in instances where it is clear through the course of discovery that the plaintiff made a factual error in their complaint or amended complaint.
2. The Plaintiff's amended Complaint states:
"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."

3. P-004 shows that 5 minutes and 51 seconds out of the 10 minutes in jail to which Plaintiff was sentenced were skipped by Plaintiff, meaning that Plaintiff only spent 4 minutes in jail. The claim that SCCA §4(2)(c) entitles the Plaintiff to $500 in compensatory damages is therefore factually incorrect.

4. SCCA §4(2)(c) states that the damages defined therein apply "If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed..." Plaintiff has not been found to be not guilty of a crime, and therefore the claim that SCCA §4(2)(c) entitles Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely is factually incorrect.

Response

Your Honor,

The motion to dismiss on the basis of Rule 5.14 does not identify a single portion of the complaint's factual allegations that is incorrectly stated. The only things objected to here are legal conclusions (not factual claims) implicit in a particular prayer for relief; simply choosing to argue that the Commonwealth's interpretation of Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c) the application thereof to this case is a hard fact does a Plaintiff's factual error make.

The full quote from Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c) is: "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 offences."

The legislative intent is clear: individuals who are falsely jailed, when it is determined that they were falsely jailed, are entitled to compensation. This Court is fully competent to find that offenses alleged by the Commonwealth were unproven or and may rule on due process violations. Recent precedent, in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, confirms this.

In AlexanderLove v Commonwealth, the Plaintiff (AlexanderLove) alleged in his Complaint that the Commonwealth (Defendant) had violated AlexanderLove's rights to unreasonable search and seizure by breaking into his house using a glitch, arresting him, and sending him to prison following this unlawful arrest. The facts alleged were simple: (1) AlexanderLove was wanted for 3 murders; (2) Alexander love was locked in his Dragon Law office that nobody could enter without his permission; and (3) While sitting in his office, AlexanderLove was cuffed, charged with murder, and jailed for 30 minutes. Among the Plaintiff's prayers for relief were "$1,800 in compensatory damages as the Standardized Criminal Code Act entitles me $50 per minute falsely spent in jail, plus my $300 in fines," and Claims for Relief 2-4 involved that he was prematurely jailed, that his right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated, and that he was falsely imprisoned.

The Court in AlexanderLove v Commonwealth found for the Plaintiff, with (among other items) the Court finding:

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 98, the court rules in favor of the Plaintiff.

1. $1,800 in compensatory damages for the illegal arrest.
2. $300 in compensatory damages for the wrongful murder fines.
   
   ...

The Court appears to have granted the compensation on the basis that the arrest itself was illegal; in other words, a due process violation can void the conviction, and damages can be awarded by the Courts on this basis.

In this case, the Plaintiff seeks Declaratory Judgement that the arrest of the Plaintiff on 20 May 2025 described in this Complaint was illegal and violated the Plaintiff’s right against unreasonable seizure. What's more, the very information that the Commonwealth has failed to provide even after your court order (i.e. evidence in support of the criminal allegations against this case's Plaintiff) would be very relevant here.

In line with, the precedent in AlexanderLove v Commonwealth, should the court determine that the Plaintiff was falsely arrested, this would entitle the Plaintiff to the damages described.

In short, throwing out the whole complaint on the basis of the alleged so-called "factual error", when no portion of the "facts" section is even claimed to be incorrect is contrary to the interests of justice and is not required under the Court's rule. Throwing out the whole complaint on the basis of the Commonwealth's (incorrect) interpretation of the law and its precedents, likewise, is contrary to the interests of justice and is not required under the Court's rules.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, alleges:
1. The plaintiff, Munkler, failed to prove that they exhausted all means of resolving the charge with the DHS before filing a lawsuit. In case 2021 SCR 16, the Supreme Court's verdict (linked) ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, specifically because the plaintiff failed to contact the Department of [Homeland Security] prior to filing suit, such as via ticket, stating, "the court also believes that as examined by the Hon. Matt_S0 in Case No. 02-2021-21, the Constitution requires the D[HS] to "[maintain] the peace and good order of the server"; and while such a burden is demanding, it doesn't require infallibility. In that case, the Department of [Homeland Security] was sued for not enforcing the law, simply because it was not reported to the police. If the Plaintiffs had an issue with the conduct of the police officer or an individual, they should have reported it and contacted the Department via a departmental ticket."
2. The Commonwealth therefore alleges that this therefore alleges a violation of rule 5.5, citing a lack of claim. There is insufficient evidence to support this charge, given precedent.

Response

Your Honor,

1. The precedent, as applied to Charter rights, has been superceded by the new constitution.

Under the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act 3(2-3), which implemented the current constitution:

(2) This Constitution supersedes the previous Constitution.

(3) Any statute, judicial standard, or constitutional reference established before the enactment of this Act that conflicts with it shall be superseded.

The constitution no longer requires the DHS to maintain the peace and good order of the server as was the case at the time of 2021 SCR 16; language regarding the powers of executive agencies have been removed from the constitution and no language in the constitution has replaced it.

Because the precedent in 2021 SCR 16 relied upon the Constitutional powers of the DHS, and that language has been removed from the constitution, it appears that the judicial standard that it set is superseded; the precedent, in general, no longer applies. Instead, the current Constitution only imposes on the Charter rights "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society". When these two are in tension, and when unreasonable limits on rights are imposed on them by Commonwealth Agents (as is alleged in this case), the current Consittution is supreme.

2. Even if the precedent were still in force with respect to Charter rights, it would not apply in this case.

Just as in End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31, the 2021 SCR 16 precedent would not apply here under Federal Court precedent that interprets the 2021 SCR 16 ruling. As in that ruling, "the Plaintiff has alleged a failure to comply with a mandatory constitutional obligation". And, just as "[t]he Department of State should not need a ticket to comply", the same applies here; the Department of Homeland Security should not need a ticket to at a basic level comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What's more, as the Commonwealth notes, "In [2021 SCR 16], the Department of [Homeland Security] was sued for not enforcing the law, simply because it was not reported to the police". We do not allege here that the Department of Homeland Security failed to enforce a law against a third party because a violation was unknown. We allege something much more direct and concrete, and of which DHS agents must have been aware: the Department of Homeland Security, through its agents, deprived the Plaintiff of rights on multiple occasions.

For the first arrest, the Plaintiff did state that he had not committed the murders, as established by Exhibit P-004, and informed the arresting officer. The arresting officer had sufficient tools available to him in order to know that he had arrested the wrong player before he did so (see: Exhibit D-002, P-002). Unlike in 2021 SCR 16, in which the officer could not have known that the arrests were wrong, this case is one where an officer exercising due care would have known that it was incorrect to arrest the Plaintiff based on the name present in the "wanted" interface. All the DHS agent had to do was to hover his hand over the head in the "wanted" interface, and the name would be revealed to him on demand.

For the second arrest, we allege that "[l]ess than 10 seconds passed between the time that PricelessAgrari informed the Plaintiff that the means to dispute the charge would be to file a DHS #support ticket and the time that the Plaintiff was jailed". In other words, the Commonwealth, through its actions, deprived the ability of the Plaintiff to actually make a meaningful challenge to the charges presented before the jailing occurred including (but not limited to) the ability to find legal counsel. Once the jailing occurred, the harm was irreversibly effected. There was nothing left to exhaust here to prevent the harm - as we allege, the means by which to provide a defense were taken from the client, and the Plaintiff was unable to prevent the harm in the less than 10 seconds after receiving Miranda rights. The Commonwealth cannot claim immunity for giving the Plaintiff less than 10 seconds to (1) read the Miranda warnings message; (2) open the Democracycraft discord; (3) navigate to #support; and (4) actually open a ticket with some explanation of the situation before being jailed. Doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice, and would be an unreasonable limit to the rights and freedoms under the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Had the DHS exercised due care, neither of these situations would have required the DHS to be told any information by the Plaintiff in order to prevent the harms caused. Indeed, the DHS agents already had accessible to them the information that would have prevented the harms here; they just took the action anyway, and breached duty of care in doing so.

3. Conclusion
In short, 2021 SCR 16 no longer applies in cases involving charter rights, would not apply in this case even under certainly does not apply even if it were still in force. Constitutional developments since 2021 render the precedent, as applied to Charter rights, as superceded. What's more, the factual pattern of 2021 SCR 16 is disanalagous in meaningful ways, and developments in the Federal Court interpreting the requirements 2021 SCR 16 do not bar suits related to constitutional duty of care in the absence of a ticket when the Commonwealth exercising due care should already know the information.

As such, this Court should reject the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff presents valid claims against the Commonwealth, and this case should proceed.