- Joined
- Apr 25, 2025
- Messages
- 90
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Plura72 (represented by Mezimoří Law)
Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. Plura72
2. Commonwealth of Redmont
II. FACTS
- Plura72 (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of Redmont who owns less than 10 properties.
- On 4 May 2025, the Department of Construction and Transportation (“DCT”) started an eviction auction (“the Auction”) for plot c342 via a post on Discord (see: Exhibit P-001).
- The aforementioned Auction received several bids from several different users.
- The most recent valid bid was placed by Plaintiff, in the amount of $30,000, on 5 May 2025 (see: Exhibit P-002).
- As of the time of this complaint’s filing, no individual after Plaintiff has placed a valid bid in this Auction.
- Approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes following Plaintiff’s valid bid, the DCT employee magsymags paused the Auction by issuing an announcement in the Auction’s post (see: Exhibit P-003).
- Upon pausing the auction, the DCT employee provided the reason “an announcement about the new auction tax will be made shortly” (see: Exhibit P-003).
- Approximately 1 hour after the auction was paused, Deputy Secretary The_Superior10 (“Superior”) posted two consecutive announcements in the #government-announcements channel on YouTube.
- In these announcements, Superior stated that, due to the plot regulations act, several changes would be coming to auctions.
- The Plot Regulations Act was signed into law by President 1950Minecrafter on 1 May 2025 (see: Exhibit P-004).
- The Plot Regulations Act stated that it was effective upon its signage (see: Exhibit P-005).
- As such, the pause placed on property auctions began 4 days following the passage of the Plot Regulations Act.
- On Sunday, May 11, The Plot Regulations Act was later found to be unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Redmont in MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 41 (see: Exhibit P-006).
- In MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 41, the Commonwealth did not contest MrFluffy2U94’s claims that the Plot Regulations Act violated the Constitution (see: Exhibit P-006).
- In fact, MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 41, the Commonwealth did not even show up when summoned to court, the bare minimum required to contest MrFluffy2U94’s claims (see: Exhibit P-006).
- As such, the stated reason for the pause of the auction was because of an unconstitutional action by the Commonwealth.
- Section 4(1) of the Property Standards Act states that the DCT “shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.”
- To establish regulations of the transfer of plots sold at eviction auction, the Department of Construction and Transportation has created an “Evictions Plot Policy”, which is available on the forums.
- In these regulations the DCT mentions the pausing of an auction in one sentence. This sentence reads “The DCT has the right to restart, pause, or cancel an eviction auction at any time for a valid reason”.
- No other authority for pausing an eviction auction besides the authority given in the prior fact is present in the Evictions Plot Policy.
- In smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, the Federal Court of Redmont found that “[e]very department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations. For the Department of Construction and Transport, this includes the responsibility to conduct auctions fairly and in strict accordance with its guidelines”.
- The passage of an unconstitutional law that the Commonwealth did not even put the bare minimum effort to defend when challenged in court is not a valid reason to pause an eviction auction.
- Moreover, even if Property Standards Act were constitutional, the Plaintiff’s bid would have still been a legal and valid bid in the Auction under both the law as amended by the Property Standards Act and the law prior to the unconstitutional bill’s signing, as the Plaintiff owned fewer than 10 properties.
- When a valid bid has been placed, a general government announcement that does not affect the validity of that bid is not a valid reason for pausing an auction.
- The lack of a valid reason for pausing an auction means that the Department of Construction and Transportation has acted against its own regulations in pausing the auction.
- Even after the Plaintiff informed the DCT that the Plot Regulations Act was unconstitutional, the DCT did not restart the Auction.
- Even after the Plot Regulations Act had been held unconstitutional, and the Commonwealth had been ordered to apologize for the unconstitutional law, DCT Building Inspector Sleepii_Sloth publicly denied that the Plot Regulations Act was unconstitutional in the thread for the c342 eviction auction (see: Exhibit P-007).
- In the thread for the c342 eviction auction, Sleepii_Sloth did not agree that the cause for the indefinite pause of the Auction was unconstitutional, and did not take any remedial action to address this. Instead, Sleepii_Sloth stated that the DCT had yet to address the indefinite pause (see: Exhibit P-003)
- As of the time of filing, on May 14, the Auction has not been restarted.
- The Plaintiff has been unable to use the $30,000 pledged for this bid in the interim for other attempts to acquire property or conduct general business operations, as the Plaintiff’s bid in the eviction auction remains valid and outstanding and Plura remains liable for payment should the bid be accepted.
- Section 33(15) the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont guarantees all citizens “a right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”.
- By essentially freezing $30,000 of the Plaintiff’s money with an indefinite auction pause without valid cause, the Commonwealth of Redmont has essentially seized $30,000 of Plaintiff’s money in an unreasonable manner for an indefinite period.
- Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to reach out to the Department of Construction and Transportation in order to remedy this situation prior to the filing of this lawsuit, but the Department of Construction and Transportation has not taken any action with respect to the indefinitely paused auction for c342 (see: Exhibit P-007 and Exhibit P-008).
- After and as a result of publicly reaching to the Department of Construction and Transportation to seek information and a remedy for this auction, Plaintiff has been subject to belittling, mockery, and scorn by at least one Commonwealth employee. This includes (but is not limited to):
- DCT Secretary Vroomba, who told Plaintiff to “Get a Grip” (see: Exhibit P-008);
- DCT Deputy Secretary The_Superior_10, who said “it’s not worth arguing” with Plaintiff; and
- DCT Employee LL4444444444444, who disparagingly commented “brother…”
- This name-calling, belittling, mockery, and scorn by Commonwealth employees amounts to humiliation of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
- Violation of Constitutional Rights:
- As this court has previously held, “[e]very department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations”. By indefinitely pausing the auction without valid reason, the Commonwealth of Redmont has essentially prevented Plaintiff from using his own money for other purposes, creating an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff’s assets in violation of Constitution of Redmont 33(15). This violates the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, resulting in a concrete breach of duty of care.
- Violation of DCT Regulations:
- And, as this Court has ruled in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, "all laws set out by Congress can impose a duty on the defendant", referring to a duty of care and a Commonwealth department as a defendant. These laws include the Property Standards Act, which empowers the DCT to set out laws and regulations regarding evictions. The DCT relies on this law, and thus is subject to statutory duty of care, when acting on powers it assumes through its Evictions Plot Policy. As such, just as this Court has previously held in smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, the duty of care required of the Department of Construction and Transportation “includes the responsibility to conduct auctions fairly and in strict accordance with its guidelines”.
By indefinitely pausing the auction without valid cause, and continuing to do so even after the original cause for the pause had been ordered struck as unconstitutional, the Department has violated its own Eviction Auction Policy and therefore breached its duty of care. As a result of this breach, Plaintiff has been unjustly denied the ownership of the property c342 for several days as the invalid pause remains.
- And, as this Court has ruled in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, "all laws set out by Congress can impose a duty on the defendant", referring to a duty of care and a Commonwealth department as a defendant. These laws include the Property Standards Act, which empowers the DCT to set out laws and regulations regarding evictions. The DCT relies on this law, and thus is subject to statutory duty of care, when acting on powers it assumes through its Evictions Plot Policy. As such, just as this Court has previously held in smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, the duty of care required of the Department of Construction and Transportation “includes the responsibility to conduct auctions fairly and in strict accordance with its guidelines”.
- Belittling and Humiliation:
- After the Plaintiff commented in the auction thread as to the unconstitutionality of the Property Standards Act, the passage of which was the original justification for the indefinite pause, several DCT and Commonwealth employees belittled the Plaintiff in that same thread. By belittling the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff attempted to seek redress of the violations of DCT regulations in the auction thread, and by choosing not to remedy the situation on their own, the DCT employees breached their duty of care towards the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
- Compensatory Damages for loss of enjoyment arising from the Commonwealth’s illegal pause of the auction:
- The Department of Construction and Transportation illegally paused an auction, indefinitely depriving the Plaintiff his enjoyment of his $30,000 so long as the bid remained valid, and depriving the Plaintiff enjoyment of property c342. To remedy this, the Plaintiff seeks a Writ of Mandamus ordering the Plaintiff’s bid for c342 to be accepted, and for the property to be transferred to the Plaintiff.
- Compensatory Damages in the form of humiliation damages from statements made by Commonwealth employees:
- For humiliation endured as a result of the Plaintiff’s reaching out to the Commonwealth, the Plaintiff seeks $20,000 in compensatory damages.
- Punitive Damages:
- When the Plaintiff attempted to reach out to the Commonwealth to resolve the issues surrounding the illegal pause of the Auction, the Plaintiff was met with scorn, contempt, and belittling. For outrageous unconstitutional and regulation-violating conduct by the Commonwealth, as well as outrageous humiliation, the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the amount of $10,000.
- Nominal Damages:
- Should none of the aforementioned prayers for relief be granted, the Plaintiff request $7,500 in nominal damages for violations of his constitutional rights and for the Department of Construction and Transportation failing to uphold to its obligations and duty of care under its own regulations.
- Legal fees.
- Legal fees in the amount of 30% of the granted relief, with no less than $6,000 as stated in the Legal Damages Act.
- Plura72
- MagsyMags
- 1950Minecrafter
- Sleepii_Sloth
- Vroomba
- The_Superior10
- MrFluffy2U94
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 14 day of May 2025
Motion
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The transfer of plot c342 to a third party while the Plaintiff’s bid is outstanding and valid would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff would permanently be denied enjoyment of the property. For that reason, the Plaintiff asks for an injunction barring the Commonwealth from transferring the property to any other person or entity than the Plaintiff, or taking steps to sell the property to any other person or entity than the Plaintiff, until this litigation is resolved.
Last edited:
