Lawsuit: Dismissed Plura72 v. Realimza [2025] SCR 17

[Aboundedcomet]

Case Filing

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Plura72 (represented by Aboundedcomet)
Plaintiff
v.
Realimza
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff states that the defendant had a CoI due to him having previously harassed the defendant, giving him a political motive to remove him from congress. They state that he had another CoI due to previous events unfolding between the plaintiff and defendant at GlobalCenter Corporation. They also state that they have been harassed and threatened by the defendant, proving a lack of ethical thinking by the defendant.
The plaintiff states that the defendant has slandered their name, releasing many false statements ruining the public's view of the plaintiff, humiliating him, and causing him to lose enjoyment in redmont.

I. PARTIES
1. Plura72 (represented by Aboundedcomet)
2. Realimza
3. Graprieljuice - witness (CFO of Globalcenter Corporation)
4. Multiman155 - witness (Speaker of the House)

II. FACTS
1. The defendant has previously harassed the plaintiff.
2. Previous complications have occurred between the defendant and plaintiff at GlobalCenter Corporation.
3. The defendant has previously threatened the plaintiff.
4. The defendant and the plaintiff both work or have previously worked at Globalcenter corporation .
5. The defendant is a member of the New Alliance (NA) party.
6. The plaintiff is a member of the Labor Party of Redmont (LPR).
7. The NA and LPR have opposing views.
8. Due to fact 7 defendant has a political motive to remove the plaintiff from the house and inflict reputational harm.
9. Plaintiff has demonstrated interest in running in the October presidential elections
10. By causing reputational harm, the defendant has made the vote base consider untrue or inaccurate and/or inflated statements in regard to the plaintiff in their election

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. As stated in fact 10 the defendant has defamed the plaintiff.
2. Also as stated in fact 10, the defendant has slandered the name of the plaintiff.
3. As stated in facts 1 and 3 the defendant has harassed the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Removal of RealImza from the house

Due to ethical, moral and an obvious abuse of power, the plaintiff requests this court to reconsider precedent set in bigpappa v. The commonwealth and allow this to be a valid prayer for relief. The defendant has shown an obvious lack of respect to the plaintiff by abusing the position as a member of the house to initiate a hearing with the intent to cause reputational harm to the plaintiff

2. The Hearing against representative Plura72 to be declared unconstitutional. And to be immediately dismissed

3. $50,000 dollars in Consequential damages, due to loss of enjoyment in Redmont and humiliation.

4. 30% in of the case value in legal fees to be awarded to AboundantComet in legal fees

Spoiler: Evidence 1

Spoiler: Evidence 2

Spoiler: Evidence 3

Spoiler: Evidence 4

Spoiler: Evidence 5

Spoiler: Evidence 5

Spoiler: Evidence 6

Spoiler: Evidence 7

Spoiler: Evidence 8

Spoiler: Evidence 9

Witnesses:

GraprielJuice
Multiman115


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 1st day of October 2025

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

May it please the Court, the Speaker of the House wishes to submit an Amicus brief regarding the second prayer for relief.

 

[ThePuffer]

Your Honor,
May it please the court, that as an investigate journalist for The Redmondt Gazette, who has been covering the Plura72 hearing, I would wish to submit an amicus brief, regarding the usage of lawsuits such as this, in order to incite fear within defendant, and to hurt our democratic system

 

[Smallfries]

In a 2-0 vote, the Supreme Court dismisses this case sua sponte for lack of standing under rule 2.1(3). The only standing the Plaintiff alleges before the Supreme Court is through the removal of office of Representative Imza. This is a remedy available in very few circumstances—only through criminal prosecution or after proving a defect in the manner in which the government official obtained their office. See Plura72 v. JuniperFig [2025] SCR 16; zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 14; ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 13; ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 12; bigpappa140 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 11.

We have made it abundantly clear at this point that we, the Supreme Court of Redmont, may only remove an individual from office using our constitutional powers under limited circumstances. These include if the State is prosecuting a crime, or if there was an alleged defect, mistake, or otherwise illegitimate background to the defendant's obtaining the office that the plaintiff is asking us to remove the defendant from.

As Plaintiff Plura72 has attempted to use this standing erroneously in the past and has similarly and clearly been dismissed sua sponte for the same reasons, the Supreme Court in a 2-0 vote further find him guilty of contempt of court. Plura72 is assigned ten penalty units, amounting to a fine of $1,000.