Lawsuit: In Session Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 69

[Plura72]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I'm here today because something seriously wrong is going on, and it’s being done by the very people who are supposed to protect the law, not break it. The Commonwealth expects us, regular citizens, to follow its laws, and we do. But when the government itself—specifically the Department of the Interior—starts ignoring those same laws, that’s not something we can just turn a blind eye to.
What’s happening at the Reveille Shelter is shocking and honestly heartbreaking. In one case I saw, there were more than ten dogs crammed into a space barely 3x3 blocks. That’s not just unfair to the animals, it’s cruel. And it’s illegal. We’ve got laws against pet and animal overcrowding, and for good reason. These animals can’t speak for themselves. They depend on us to do the right thing.
But instead of fixing the problem, the Department of the Interior has done nothing. They’ve known about it, and they’ve let it continue. And what’s worse, the Department of Justice hasn’t done a thing about it either. It feels like no one’s being held responsible for this, even though it’s clearly against the law.
If the shelter can’t handle more animals, then they need to stop taking more in until they can. Or expand it—do something. But right now they’re just letting animals suffer, and we’re supposed to sit back and accept it?

I. PARTIES
1. Plura72
2. DoI
3. DoJ

II. FACTS
1. The Department of the Interior has been comiting animal abuse, more specifically violating Pet overcrowding and Animal overcrowding laws
2. The Department of the Interior has not made any effort to fix this issue
3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions.
4. Pet overcrowding is a crime under the Criminal Code Act
5. Animal overcrowding is a crime under the Criminal Code Act
6. both departments were negigent and aware of the issue and decided not to act on it
7. The reveille shelter is managed by the Department of the Interior

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $50,000 to be given to the plaintiff for purposes of animal welfare services
2. $5.000 in legal fees
3. Public apology from the DoI
4. The immediate compliance of the DoI with animal welfare laws

Spoiler: p-001

Spoiler: p-002

Spoiler: p-003

Spoiler: p-004

Spoiler: p-005

Spoiler: p-006

Spoiler: p-007

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 8 day of july 2025

 

[ameslap]

Writ of Summons

@gribble19 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 69.

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.

 

[aubunny]

The Commonwealth is Present, your honor.

 

[ameslap]

The Commonwealth is Present, your honor.

The Defendant has 48 hours to post their answer to the complaint.

 

[Plura72]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaitiff asks for the following to be ammended
old:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding

New:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding
3. Discrimination against dogs

Evidence

The plaintiff requests the following image to be accepted into evidence as P-008

 

[Plura72]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence

P-009

P-010

P-011

Add to witness list:

AngryHamdog
_xrsp
Winterwolf
mcbrittle
SomeHumanonEarth
kay_jee
quazyoneandonly

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaitiff asks for the following to be ammended
old:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding

New:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(20) - Pet overcrowding
2. Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act VIII(21) - Animal overcrowding
3. Discrimination against dogs

Evidence

The plaintiff requests the following image to be accepted into evidence as P-008
View attachment 56792

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence

P-009
View attachment 56793
P-010
View attachment 56794
P-011
View attachment 56795

Add to witness list:

AngryHamdog
_xrsp
Winterwolf
mcbrittle
SomeHumanonEarth
kay_jee
quazyoneandonly

There is a time and place to add or edit complaints and it is during discovery. For the time being this is Denied. You may resubmit this once discovery begins.

Please review the court rules and procedure to ensure this does not happen in the future.

 

[Plura72]

There is a time and place to add or edit complaints and it is during discovery. For the time being this is Denied. You may resubmit this once discovery begins.

Please review the court rules and procedure to ensure this does not happen in the future.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the evidence provided is significant for pre-trial proceedings, i ask the court to accept the witness list and the evidence submitted.

 

[Plura72]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence

p-012 // Oakridge shelter fox overcrowding

p-013 // oakridge shelter dog space

 

[Plura72]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence

P-014 // parrots exposed to natural weather conditions, animal endangerment and abandonament

 

[Plura72]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence

P-015

P-016

 

[ameslap]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the evidence provided is significant for pre-trial proceedings, i ask the court to accept the witness list and the evidence submitted.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to add to complaint

the plaintiff respectfully requests the following to be admitted into evidence.

Evidence

p-012 // Oakridge shelter fox overcrowding
View attachment 56797
p-013 // oakridge shelter dog space
View attachment 56798

Motion to Reconsider and the new motion to amend are both Denied. Rule 3.3 states: "At anytime during the course of discovery, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may amend their Complaint to change the following..."

You will have your chance to amend your complaint. Furthermore, the trial does not commence until discovery is completed, so that meets your request of "the evidence provided is significant for pre-trial proceedings".

 

[aubunny]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.15; Joinder Limitation

The commonwealth motions to dismiss this case for multiple reasons.

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [5.12]:

The plaintiff has no standing to lodge this case, as provided by Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules, you must have suffered injury by some clear second party. As the plaintiff has not been slighted by the summary offenses they allege against the government, they have no clear standing to represent this case.

Precedent in lcn vs the Commonwealth 2025 [FCR 39] has shown through a successful motion to dismiss that a citizen cannot prosecute on behalf of the Department of Justice, this also applies to this case here, where the plaintiff is attempting to prosecute the DoI in the DoJs absence, through the claim listed "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as shown in FCR 39, a citizen may not prosecute on behalf of the department of justice.

Lack of Claim [5.5]:

There are two reasons why the plaintiff does not hold claim to the case at hand.

The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing animal overcrowding or animal cruelty.

Evidence listed [P-1,2,3,4,5,7] show plenty of room for the animals listed. It should be taken to note that the animals are not able to free roam as a restriction of the game engine, as if they were allowed to walk as they please they would just teleport out of the adoption center following the ranger who registered it as their owner.

Evidence 6 shows a stray center listing animals that are in a tight crowd, however this is a necessary result of the stray pen policy in the DOI. Strays need to be held close together under a sign for 30 days as per DOI Policy, this is a temporary arrangement that is required for bureaucracy and adoption by the original owner without accidentally misplacing any of the many dogs listed there.

The plaintiff lists claims that do not match either the facts or the reliefs requested by the Plaintiff, and as such this case should be dismissed.

The claims requested are two summary offenses against the Department of Interior, however their relief prayers list multiple requests that fall beyond the purview of the facts presented. 50,000 as a prayer for relief, as a result of the claims for relief given, do not line up as any sort of damages claimed by the plaintiff. This case is a frivolous filing in order to extract money from the commonwealth, which leads into the next point;

There was no attempt to go through proper channels within the DOI in order to resolve this issue, and as shown through precedent within these courts in 2021 SCR 16, where the justices state that "As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit.", no departmental ticket was created to handle this, and as such they have not utilized all exhaustive measures in order to resolve the situation before moving forward to reckless litigation.

Precedent has also shown that through the same fact "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as an invalid claim as the government cannot seek damages against itself, as shown through SCR precedent in 2024 [SCR 35], due to this, the listed above fact holds no claim to the case in motion and exists only to show that the plaintiff has not made any attempt to resolve this without looking to legal avenues.

Immunity Protections [5.11]

The DOI has a policy for putting stray animals within certain pens for the sake of organization and management for a duration of 30 days, found within their policy here, The evidence shown in P-6 is of a stray pen that was put up last night in order to handle a sudden influx of white dogs that were left there the night before, all under the same owner, as such, the pen follows DOI policy of requiring all strays within the same owner to be found within the same pen for the duration of 30 days.

For the reasons listed above, this case represents a citizen trying to extract undue profits from the government by reporting things that are not crimes, and as such, should be dismissed.

 

[Plura72]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.15; Joinder Limitation

The commonwealth motions to dismiss this case for multiple reasons.

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [5.12]:

The plaintiff has no standing to lodge this case, as provided by Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules, you must have suffered injury by some clear second party. As the plaintiff has not been slighted by the summary offenses they allege against the government, they have no clear standing to represent this case.

Precedent in lcn vs the Commonwealth 2025 [FCR 39] has shown through a successful motion to dismiss that a citizen cannot prosecute on behalf of the Department of Justice, this also applies to this case here, where the plaintiff is attempting to prosecute the DoI in the DoJs absence, through the claim listed "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as shown in FCR 39, a citizen may not prosecute on behalf of the department of justice.

Lack of Claim [5.5]:

There are two reasons why the plaintiff does not hold claim to the case at hand.

The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing animal overcrowding or animal cruelty.

Evidence listed [P-1,2,3,4,5,7] show plenty of room for the animals listed. It should be taken to note that the animals are not able to free roam as a restriction of the game engine, as if they were allowed to walk as they please they would just teleport out of the adoption center following the ranger who registered it as their owner.

Evidence 6 shows a stray center listing animals that are in a tight crowd, however this is a necessary result of the stray pen policy in the DOI. Strays need to be held close together under a sign for 30 days as per DOI Policy, this is a temporary arrangement that is required for bureaucracy and adoption by the original owner without accidentally misplacing any of the many dogs listed there.

The plaintiff lists claims that do not match either the facts or the reliefs requested by the Plaintiff, and as such this case should be dismissed.

The claims requested are two summary offenses against the Department of Interior, however their relief prayers list multiple requests that fall beyond the purview of the facts presented. 50,000 as a prayer for relief, as a result of the claims for relief given, do not line up as any sort of damages claimed by the plaintiff. This case is a frivolous filing in order to extract money from the commonwealth, which leads into the next point;

There was no attempt to go through proper channels within the DOI in order to resolve this issue, and as shown through precedent within these courts in 2021 SCR 16, where the justices state that "As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit.", no departmental ticket was created to handle this, and as such they have not utilized all exhaustive measures in order to resolve the situation before moving forward to reckless litigation.

Precedent has also shown that through the same fact "3. The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Department of Interior for their horrific actions." as an invalid claim as the government cannot seek damages against itself, as shown through SCR precedent in 2024 [SCR 35], due to this, the listed above fact holds no claim to the case in motion and exists only to show that the plaintiff has not made any attempt to resolve this without looking to legal avenues.

Immunity Protections [5.11]

The DOI has a policy for putting stray animals within certain pens for the sake of organization and management for a duration of 30 days, found within their policy here, The evidence shown in P-6 is of a stray pen that was put up last night in order to handle a sudden influx of white dogs that were left there the night before, all under the same owner, as such, the pen follows DOI policy of requiring all strays within the same owner to be found within the same pen for the duration of 30 days.

For the reasons listed above, this case represents a citizen trying to extract undue profits from the government by reporting things that are not crimes, and as such, should be dismissed.

your honor i request a response

 

[ameslap]

your honor i request a response

You may.