Lawsuit: Dismissed Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plura72

Plura72

Representative
Representative
Health Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
5th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Statesman
Plura72
Plura72
Representative
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
154

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME 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

On August 24, 2025, the Department of State (“DoS”) released a public announcement declaring Tallion77 the winner of the Oakridge Head of Residence position. However, no transparency report, verifiable ballot count, or official auditing documentation was released alongside these results. The absence of such a transparency report raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy and legitimacy of the outcome. Without independent proof, the so-called results can be easily falsified or manipulated.

Furthermore, the electoral officer overseeing this election, Juniperfig, holds personal and political ties to the WPR party, and through its coalition with TP, stands to benefit directly from Tallion77’s election. This constitutes a conflict of interest which should have disqualified Juniperfig from overseeing the vote counting process. Allowing an individual with vested interests to administer the election undermines the fairness, impartiality, and integrity of the democratic process.

Several additional irregularities compound these concerns. First, although transparency reports have been standard practice in previous elections, none was released here, making this case highly irregular. Second, the announcement of the results was unusually delayed by several hours, deviating from the normal timeline of Oakridge election reporting. Third, public statements made by Juniperfig prior to the election showed favoritism toward the WPR-TP coalition, undermining confidence in their neutrality. Finally, early polling and community support strongly favored me, Plura72, yet the final results reported by the DoS reflected a dramatic and unexplained reversal, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the vote.

Because of these actions and omissions, I assert that the DoS has engaged in electoral fraud by withholding transparency and appointing a conflicted official to oversee the election. Additionally, the DoS was negligent in failing to ensure impartial administration of the vote. As a direct result, I, the rightful candidate, have been wrongfully deprived of office, reputational standing, and the benefits associated with the Oakridge Head of Residence position.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES

1 Plura72, Plaintiff

2 The Commonwealth of Redmont, Defendant

II. FACTS

1 On August 24, 2025, the DoS released the “results” of the Oakridge elections.

2 According to these reported results, Tallion77 was elected as Oakridge Head of Residence.

3 No transparency report, ballot log, or independent auditing documentation was released, despite such reports being customary in prior elections.

4 Without a transparency report, the election results can easily be falsified or manipulated.

5 Juniperfig, the electoral officer responsible for overseeing the election, holds personal and political ties to the WPR party, and through its coalition with TP, benefits from Tallion77’s victory.

6 The official announcement of the results was delayed by several hours, contrary to the standard election reporting timeline.

7 Prior to the election, Juniperfig made public comments showing clear favoritism toward the WPR-TP coalition, raising serious concerns of bias.

8 Polling data and community sentiment strongly favored the Plaintiff, Plura72, yet the results reported by the DoS represented a dramatic and unexplained reversal of the expected outcome.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1 Election Fraud
By failing to release a transparency report and thereby concealing proof of the true outcome, the DoS committed electoral fraud.

2 Negligence
By permitting Juniperfig, an individual with a clear conflict of interest, to oversee and count votes, the DoS negligently facilitated electoral fraud.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1 The Plaintiff respectfully seeks the following from the Defendant:

2 Removal of Tallion77 from the office of Oakridge Head of Residence.

3 An award of $70,000 in damages.

4 A declaration by this Court that Plura72 is the rightful winner of the Oakridge Head of Residence office.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable.)

By making this submission, I affirm that I understand the penalties of lying in court and acknowledge that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 24th day of August, 2025




Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The plaintiff respectfully resquests that tallion77 be temporarily barred from his position in the town council until this lawsuit is adjuourned.

 

Evidence


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
The plaintiff submits the following

1756080478141.png

1756080494572.png

1756080543554.png
1756080560632.png

1756080614932.png

 

Writ of Summons



@Attorney General's Office is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Plura72 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 15.

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.

 
Commonwealth is present, your honour.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm that on August 24, 2025, the DoS released the results of the Oakridge elections, noting that the results were specifically for the Head of Residence election.

2. Affirm that according to these reported results, Talion77 was elected as Oakridge Head of Residence, noting that Talion77 was elected as Oakridge Head of Residence, not Tallion77. (P-001)

3. Deny that no transparency report, ballot log, or independent auditing documentation was released, despite such reports being customary in prior elections. The transparency report and ballot logs were released (D-001, D-002) and independent auditing documentation is not customary.

4. Deny that without a transparency report, the election results can easily be falsified or manipulated. There is no evidence suggesting this to be the case. The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to substantiate these claims.

5. Affirm that Juniperfig, the electoral officer responsible for overseeing the election, holds personal and political ties to the WPR party, and through its coalition with TP, benefits from Talion77’s victory, noting that Talion77 was elected as Oakridge Head of Residence, not Tallion77. (P-001)

6. Deny that the official announcement of the results was delayed by several hours, contrary to the standard election reporting timeline. The official announcement of the results was released 30 minutes after the polls closed (D-003, D-004). The Department of State has 48 hours to release election results (Electoral Act 16.2).

7. Partially affirm that prior to the election, Juniperfig made public comments showing clear favoritism toward the WPR-TP coalition, raising serious concerns of bias. Juniperfig does publicly favour the WPR-TP coalition. No serious concerns of bias have been raised.

8. Deny that polling data and community sentiment strongly favored the Plaintiff, Plura72, yet the results reported by the DoS represented a dramatic and unexplained reversal of the expected outcome. There is no evidence to suggest this is the case and the Plaintiff has not offered any. The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to substantiate these claims.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff’s allegation of electoral fraud is entirely unsubstantiated. The reported results were independently corroborated by multiple officers: first by Electoral Officer Eenza (D-002), and again by Electoral Manager Angryhamdog during the preparation of the transparency report. In addition, nine other electoral officers of diverse political affiliations were present (D-005) and had the opportunity to observe the counting process.

At no point has any officer involved in this election raised concerns or alleged misconduct. The absence of any objection or evidence from those directly overseeing the process confirms the integrity of the election and undermines the Plaintiff’s claims of fraud. This will be further demonstrated during witness testimony.

2. The Plaintiff’s allegation of a “conflict of interest” is fundamentally misplaced. The Department of State’s policy on conflicts of interest applies only where an individual is directly involved as a candidate in the election they administer. It does not extend to the mere existence of political affiliations.

To adopt the Plaintiff’s interpretation would be to require the Department of State to employ only individuals with no political views or community ties whatsoever, which is an impossible standard on a server where every citizen has a stake in the outcome of elections. The existence of political or social connections alone does not constitute a disqualifying conflict under the Department’s own rules, nor does it equate to evidence of bias or misconduct.

3. Even if the Department of State had not released a transparency report, this alone would not constitute evidence of electoral fraud. The burden rests on the Plaintiff to provide proof of falsification or manipulation, which they have wholly failed to do.

4. The Plaintiff cites no authority supporting the $70,000 in damages. This prayer is legally unsupported.

III. EVIDENCE

1756256446524.png
1756256508873.png
1756256536190.png
1756256553759.png
1756256869565.png

IV. WITNESSES
1. SomeHumanOnEarth, Secretary of State
2. Angryhamdog, Electoral Manager
3. Eenza, Electoral Officer

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 26th day of August 2025.


Motion

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

The Commonwealth respectfully moves to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety according to Rule 5.5 and Rule 2.1.

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim):
A motion to dismiss may be filed against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.
Regarding Claim 1: Plaintiff alleges the Department of State failed to release a transparency report. This is demonstrably false. Transparency reports and ballot logs were released (D-001, D-002). Moreover, even if no report had been issued, the absence of a transparency report does not prove electoral fraud. The Plaintiff has offered no evidence of falsification or manipulation, and thus Claim 1 must be dismissed under Rule 5.5.
Regarding Claim 2: Plaintiff’s second claim rests entirely on the allegation of electoral fraud. As shown above, no evidence has been provided to substantiate that allegation. The Plaintiff’s only purported “evidence” is factually incorrect. Therefore, Claim 2 likewise fails under Rule 5.5.

Rule 2.1 (Standing Application):
The Plaintiff cannot establish standing under Rule 2.1.

The Plaintiff asserts electoral fraud, but this claim is unsupported. Transparency reports and ballot logs were in fact released by the Department of State (D-001, D-002). No evidence has been provided to show that fraud occurred, nor that any action of the Department was unlawful. Accordingly, this case fails the second requirement for standing: that the cause of injury was against the law.
Because Plaintiff has not shown an unlawful injury, no remedy is available under law. Losing an election is not a legally cognizable injury absent proof of misconduct, which the Plaintiff has failed to provide. Accordingly, this case fails the third requirement for standing: that remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

Under Rule 2.2 (Sua Sponte Dismissal), failure to meet all three standing requirements is grounds for dismissal.


Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

3 No transparency report, ballot log, or independent auditing documentation was released, despite such reports being customary in prior elections.
Click to expand...
As evidenced by D-001 and D-002, transparency reports were made. This fact is blatantly false and should be struck from the record.


Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

3 No transparency report, ballot log, or independent auditing documentation was released, despite such reports being customary in prior elections.
Click to expand...
No independent auditing documentation has ever been released alongside a transparency report and is not customary for elections.
See D-001, D-002, and the following:
Dept. State

Election Post in thread 'Council Elections - AUGUST 2025'

ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY
In accordance with the Electoral Transparency Act, the Department of State has released the following information regarding this election:

juniperfig (leading) and A__C) counted the election results.

Both cases, no documents or external tools were used, votes were hand-counted by the EO's.

Attached are the anonymized results for the above elections.
Dept. State

Election Post in thread 'Mayor Election - AUGUST 2025'

Votes were hand-counted by Eenza and Multiman155.
  • Like
Dept. State

Election Post in thread 'Council Election - July 2025 (SPECIAL)'

ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY

In accordance with the Electoral Transparency Act, the Department of State has released the following information regarding this election:

winterwolf (leading) and Multiman155 counted the votes.

No documents or external tools were used, votes were hand-counted by the EO's.

Anonymized results are attached.
  • Love
Dept. State

Election Post in thread 'Council Election - June 2025 (SPECIAL)'

ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY

In accordance with the Electoral Transparency Act, the Department of State has released the following information regarding this election:

juniperfig (leading) and winterwolf counted the results.

Both cases, no documents or external tools were used, votes were hand-counted by the EO's.

Attached are the anonymized results for the election.
Dept. State

Election Post in thread 'Council Elections - JUNE 2025'

ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY

In accordance with the Electoral Transparency Act, the Department of State has released the following information regarding this election:

juniperfig (leading), winterwolf, and A__C counted the two quaternary runoffs.

Both cases, no documents or external tools were used, votes were hand-counted by the EO's.

Attached are the 2 anonymized results for the quaternary runoff election.
  • Heart
Dept. State

Election Post in thread 'Council Elections - JUNE 2025'

ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY

In accordance with the Electoral Transparency Act, the Department of State has released the following information regarding this election:

juniperfig (leading), winterwolf, and A__C counted the two tertiary runoffs.

Both cases, no documents or external tools were used, votes were hand-counted by the EO's.

Attached are the 2 anonymized results for the tertiary runoff election.
Dept. State

Election Post in thread 'Council Elections - JUNE 2025'

ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY
In accordance with the Electoral Transparency Act, the Department of State has released the following information regarding this election:

Winterwolf (leading), Angryhamdog, and A__C counted the initial five election results.
Winterwolf (leading), and Angryhamdog counted the first two runoff election results.

Both cases, no documents or external tools were used, votes were hand-counted by the EO's.

Attached are the 7 anonimized results for the initial and 1st runoff election.


Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

6 The official announcement of the results was delayed by several hours, contrary to the standard election reporting timeline.
Click to expand...
The official announcement was posted thirty minutes after the polls closed (D-003, D-004), 47 hours and 30 minutes before the deadline given in 16.2 of the Electoral Act. This fact is blatantly false and should be struck from the record.

 
Your Honour,

The RCLU has a substantial institutional interest in ensuring that the Courts of this Commonwealth are utilized in a manner consistent with principles of equal access and fair justice for all parties, private citizens and the Commonwealth itself. As an organization dedicated to safeguarding constitutional rights and the integrity of judicial processes, the RCLU seeks to provide perspective on the broader constitutional issues implicated by the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

May the RCLU file an amicus curiae brief discussing the constitutional concerns that arise from the Complaint?
 

Motion



Motion to nolle preosequi

I no longer wish to pursue this case

 

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Plura72 has, yet again, wasted time, resources, and money for a frivolous lawsuit. Commonwealth requests punitive damages and a permanent injunction barring the Defendant from filing lawsuits without oversight.
Click to expand...
I. PARTIES
1. Plura72
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On August 24, 2025, at 4:40PM PDT, the Department of State released the results of the August 2025 Oakridge Head of Residence election (D-004).
2. On August 24, 2025, at 5:02PM PDT, Plura72 filed Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 15.
3. There was a 22 minute gap between the results being released and Plura filing the lawsuit.
4. The Department of State has 48 hours to release the result of an election after the polls close (Electoral Act 16.2).
5. The Department of State has 48 hours to release the names of all members who assisted in tabulating an election after publishing the results (Electoral Act 16.4).
6. The Department of State has 7 days to release all materials involved in the tabulation of a vote after the polls close (Electoral Act 16.5).
7. The Department of State released the results of the August 2025 Oakridge Head of Residence Election 30 minutes after the polls closed (D-003, D-004).
8. The Department of State released all additional required information for the August 2025 Oakridge Head of Residence Election within 48 hours of the polls closing (D-001, D-002).
9. In Plura72 v Air [2025] DCR 31, the Defendant was barred from filing frivolous lawsuits for one month.
10. In Plura72 v Reverse Class action Group, a permanent injunction was ordered, barring the Defendant in this case from filing any cases for two months.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under the Legal Damages Act, punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others from similar conduct in the future. These damages may be sought as a counterclaim when a party believes the case to be frivolous, and do not require proof of actual loss (Legal Damages Act 5.1.a).
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging electoral fraud and missing transparency requirements a mere 22 minutes after the Department of State released the election results, despite the Department being statutorily entitled to 7 full days under the Electoral Act to release all tabulation materials.
At the time of filing, the Department of State was in full compliance with all statutory obligations under the Electoral Act. No breach had occurred, nor was one legally possible at that time.
The Plaintiff’s case therefore had no serious purpose or value. This fits the definition of a frivolous court case (Criminal Code Act III.4).

2. The Defendant is known to file frivolous lawsuits (Plura72 v Air [2025] DCR 31, Plura72 v Reverse Class action Group). In Plura72 v Reverse Class action Group, the Court found the Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigator who excessively filed cases with no purpose or standing and did so despite prior warnings. The present action demonstrates that these warnings and sanctions have had no effect, and that the Plaintiff continues to abuse judicial processes for cases with no merit.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5000 in punitive damages, payable to the Commonwealth.
2. A permanent injunction barring Plura72 from filing cases unless represented by counsel, for a period of time determined by the Courts.

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 27th of August 2025.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top