Lawsuit: Dismissed nnmc et al. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

nnmc

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
nnmc
nnmc
attorney
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
322
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


nnmc et al.
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I REQUEST AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE SERVING OF THIS WARRANT FOR THE DURATION OF THIS CASE. SHOULD THE WARRANT BE SERVED AND THEN LATER FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL, THERE WOULD BE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE PRIVACY OF THE PLAINTIFFS. THIS NECESSITATES THE COURT TO PROVIDE AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION TO PREVENT IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFFS.

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Department of Justice, in closed court, sought a warrant that is excessively broad and unconstitutionally violates the rights of those targeted by the warrant. This warrant is now being executed on the targets with very little transparency. Presumably, the court of first instance for warrants issued this warrant as well, so I presume the Federal Court issued this warrant. I am thus bringing this matter to the Supreme Court.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF:
This lawsuit may need to be litigated in closed court, due to the original warrant having been issued in closed court. It may therefore be impossible to have this case in open court when the case is based off of the unconstitutionality of a closed court warrant. This initial filing may also be vague due to the original warrant being closed. I ask the Justices to understand this difficult situation and allow me to further explain my case in closed court.

I. PARTIES
1. nnmc (Plaintiff)
2. Wetc (Plaintiff)
3. Kitje_Katje_NL (Plaintiff)
4. Martytje1234567 (Plaintiff)
5. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
6. Other targets of the warrant who I will not name here due to the warrant being closed
7. BoopingBerry (Sergeant carrying out the warrant)

II. FACTS
1. Early in the morning of May 16, 2022, Sgt. BoopingBerry sent a Discord DM to the plaintiff with a closed court warrant. This warrant demanded my private Discord DMs with Individual X, because Individual X was under suspicion for certain crimes. I understand I am being vague here but the warrant being closed leaves me little option. This warrant in question is a reissued version of the warrant that was the subject of [2022] SCR 6.
2. When I asked the Sgt questions about who requested the original warrant on May 15, I was given non-answers. I was also told to not tell Individual X anything about this warrant.
3. The warrant is being served on the plaintiffs and other individuals, but is strangely not being served on the person accused of the crimes in the first place.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under Section IV Point IV of the Constitution, I am entitled to appeal a charge made against me by the state. The Federal Court, by issuing this warrant, and the Justice Department, by serving it, are implicitly accusing me of a crime with absolutely no probable cause. Therefore, I am bringing this matter to the Supreme Court
2. Under Section IV Point XIV of the Constitution, I am entitled to not be deprived of life, liberty, and security except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. There may be a reasonable suspicion that Individual X has committed a crime, but there is no such suspicion upon me. I am confident of this because the warrant's scope is so excessively broad and targets so many people, whose only mutual connection is Individual X. It is clear then that the Justice Department suspects Individual X has committed a crime and is grasping for straws by targeting their acquaintances. It would be consistent with the principles of fundamental justice for a warrant to be served against Individual X, but it could not be further from justice to issue a warrant that broadly targets people, in this case the plaintiffs, simply for being connected to someone accused of a crime.
3. Under Section IV Point XII of the Constitution, I am entitled to freedom of association. I should be able to associate with Individual X, without fear of being considered guilty by association if Individual X is accused of a crime.
4. Under Section IV Point XV of the Constitution, I am entitled to not be unreasonable searched or seized. The Justice Department is trying to search me for no good reason, other than the fact that I am associated with Individual X.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A permanent injunction against this warrant being served
2. The removal from office of the judge who issued this unconstitutional warrant

I have evidence to provide and I would wish to do so in a closed court forum, due to the fact that this evidence shows a closed court warrant.

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.

Screen Shot 2022-05-16 at 9.02.36 AM.png

DATED: This 16th day of May 2022
 
The Supreme Court wants to take a closer look at the evidence first before ruling on an injunction. The Plaintiff is welcome to join the Closed Court channel.
 
Your honour, I'd like to request to file an amicus brief prior to the court's decision.

Precedent exists for third parties to file an amicus brief in [2020] FCR 14, [2020] FCR 21, and [2022] SCR 2.
 
I will grant the request to file an amicus brief by mister xEndeavour. Please post the amicus brief within 24 hours.
 
There are a number of fundamental issues with this court filing, which I will explain.

This lawsuit is incorrectly addressed. Rather than suing the government, the lawsuit should be seeking to redress the decision of the court to approve this warrant. The court has agreed on two occasions that there was appropriate evidence to support the warrant, therefore, it is this decision that should be challenged.

It should not be illegal to request and enforce a court-approved warrant. The warrant was approved by the court on two occasions. The notion that this lawsuit provides is that it is illegal to request a warrant for these reasons and that it is illegal to enforce a court-approved warrant.

This individuals that this warrant targets have not been charged with anything. The individuals targeted by the warrant are being searched in relation to communications that they have had that implicates another party other than themselves. Therefore, the individual's claim that they are being accused of a crime or guilty by association is incorrect.

Reasonable Limits. The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society. When an individual with a high position in government is alleged to have committed high crimes, it is perfectly reasonable to do what is necessary to find the facts of the case. This may mean that lawful individual rights are curbed through a warrant:

The court may issue warrants - court orders that allow actions that would otherwise be unlawful - for the following:
a. Search - Expresses permission for a Police Officer, accompanied or unaccompanied, to enter private property in order to search for evidence or contraband.
Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act

The Court. The court acknowledges that warrants impede individual rights.

Warrants are court orders that authorise actions that would otherwise violate an individual rights. Warrants are filed in the Federal Court. Guide - Court Orders Guide

The Department. The warrant precludes the upper-echelons of the Department of Justice from knowing its contents. How is the Department supposed to defend itself against a warrant that the upper-leadership are not privy to? Why would the Department/Government fight to maintain a warrant against them?

Warrant Targets. The nature of the warrant target is Chat logs and Discord messages, which can be removed. Therefore, the warrant is relying on the integrity of those it is used against not to inform the individuals precluded from knowing about the warrant. Several of the parties in this lawsuit purposefully defied the warrant and should be charged for contempt of court as a result. They impeded a witness in the investigation and obstructed justice.

Discord Messages. The court regularly makes decisions based on provided DM evidence. For example, contracts, conversations, etc. Ordering the warrant search for DMs in relation to the election is no different.

For these reasons this lawsuit is fundamentally flawed.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the court.

Edit:
Amicus Brief Approved: Wednesday 0055h AEST
Amicus Brief Posted: Wednesday 1040h AEST
 
Last edited:
This amicus brief should be ignored as it was filed nearly 12 hours late from the deadline.
 
It was not, it was in time delivered to the Court. As well because of the complexity of this case at this moment, will the Supreme Court take some extra time to deliver a decision on the Injunction and the Case itself.
 
1653344909314.png

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISMISSAL


After deliberations, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided to dismiss this case without prejudice due to the following:

The case cannot be taken up against the Department of Justice. The warrant requested was approved by Federal Court, and the Department of Justice served the warrant since, at the time, the Federal Court found that enough evidence existed to approve the serving of this warrant. At the time of the warrant’s approval, nothing blocked the search and seizure of 3rd party messages, the warrant was perfectly legal. This was a court decision that ultimately allowed the DOJ to search people’s direct messages. The Government, and by extension the DOJ, were simply fulfilling their duty which the court approved actions.

It should be noted that search warrants do not equate to a charge brought against the state. A warrant is filed when there is probable cause to believe a search is justified. This does not mean that a charge is brought against a person by the government, but the government believes that they have probable cause for a search to take place.

It should also be noted that this warrant was requested prior to the enactment of the Warrant Clarity Act. The Supreme Court believes that all those who were searched were still at liberty to give their DMs as part of the court-ordered warrant and nothing had changed the fact that the warrant was still in effect. Because of this fact, Representatives KitjeKatjeNL, Reaperay, Rurge, Ersy, nnmc, wetc, and Martytje1234567 are hereby found guilty of indirect contempt of court for their noncompliance with a court-ordered search warrant. The DOJ is to fine each representative $250.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved for their time.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top