KorroMF
Oakridge Head Of Development
Oakridge Resident
Education Department
Construction & Transport Department
Health Department
KorroMF
Executive Advisor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2026
- Messages
- 52
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
rotcepsni & BudgieBud (both represented by Blackstone Law Group)
Plaintiffs
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:
Rotcepsni and BudgieBud nominated themselves to the first August 2026 elections for the Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor. They spent $106,000 on campaign ads for the election. The election was invalidated, due to a DOS oversight in verifying the candidates, but the vote already went to the polls. This error by the DOS caused a rerun of the Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor elections. Thus losing Rotcepsni and BudgieBud $106,000. By allowing this illegitimate ticket to run for this election the Commonwealth of Redmont has acted in complete disregard of our law and democratic values.
I. PARTIES
1. Rotcepsni (Plaintiff)
2. BudgieBud (Plaintiff)
3. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. The Mayor Election - August 2026 states that one of the requirements a player must meet to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor of a town is for it to have 48 hours total playtime. (See The Requirements to be eligible for Aventura Mayorship and Deputy Mayorship)
2. The polls for the August 2026 elections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura opened on August 18 2026. (See P-001)
3. Rotcepsni and BudgieBud nominated themselves to the recently held August 2026 elections for the Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
4. An official Statement made by the Department of State, See P-002, the Aventura Mayoral election was declared invalid and rerun.
5. The rerun was caused by an error in the setup of the election.
6. An electoral officer created a second poll to fix the mistake without informing leadership until after the voting period ended. The first poll had already received votes.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Negligence (General), RCCA Part XIII s.3
Under Part XIII s.3 of the RCCA, a Defendant commits a violation of negligence if the person:
a) owes a duty of care to the plaintiff - Which in this instance would be the DoS and the officiating of the election
b) Breaches that duty through careless action - In this instance regarding the allowance of Ineligible candidates to run.
c) the beach causes harm to the plaintiff - In this instance causing economic harm through the use of advertisement companies which had no material outcome due to the re-run of the election prior to conclusion, in addition to a loss of electoral term.
d) The harm was a foreseeable consequence of the breach- Which would be clear to the defendants due to the general nature of re-attempting an ongoing election.
2. Compensatory Damages, RCCA Part II §3
The plaintiff seeks Monetary Compensation for economic loss through the usage of the advertisement company “Slashad” which resulted in $55,000 being spent prior to the election being declared invalid and requiring a re-run.(P-003 through P-009).
3. Punitive Damages. RCCA Part III(3)
The plaintiff seeks Punitive Damages to be awarded for the unlawful behaviour from the Department of State’s conduct and negligence to correctly declare tickets invalid. This also includes the defendants outrageous conduct of not notifying Department leadership until the polls had already occurred.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensatory Damages
The plaintiffs seek $150,000 each in compensatory damages each for the outrageous conduct of the Department of state; following judgment provided by The Supreme Court in AnimeInc & KattoC324 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 5; for the department of State’s conduct and omission to invalidate a Ticket in candidacy for the Mayoral Election of Aventura. This includes Presiding Justice Dr_Eksplosive’s Opinion of “A shitshow from the commonwealth”, with “A disastrous and frightening display of sheer incompetence on behalf of the commonwealth”, in addition to Associate Justice Matthewx100’s Opinion, citing “The DoS typically scans tickets to check if they meet the requirements… It is clear the DoS Failed to do so in this case”. In which this case is all too similar.
These Compensatory Damages are also in regards to the facts established in III.3 with a loss of $54,430.00 in advertisements prior to the cancellation of the election. The Plaintiff spent a further $41,592.27 on the second election, totalling $96,022.27 in advertisements(p-003 through p-009); where a 2nd election would have not changed the outcome of the Election.
2. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiffs seek $100,000 in punitive damages from the Department of State for their outrageous conduct; including FFailure to invalidate a ticket for not meeting requirements listed in Executive Order - Executive Order 46/25 - Towns' Rights and Failure to notify Department Leadership.
3. 181,800$ in legal fees, equal to 30% of the total value of this case.
V. EVIDENCE
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: The 6th day of September 2026
