Lawsuit: Pending SCRGabriele180 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 159

S

SCRgabriele180

Citizen
SCRGabriele180
SCRGabriele180
Attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2026
Messages
16

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONTCIVIL ACTION
CIVIL ACTION

SCRGabriele180
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff brings this civil action after being arrested by members of the Department of Homeland Security despite complying with lawful instructions given by officers. The Plaintiff believes the arrest lacked lawful justification and resulted in an unnecessary deprivation of liberty, financial loss, and other damages.

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff: SCRGabriele180.
2. Defendant: Department of Homeland Security.

II. FACTS

1. On 03 July 2026, the Plaintiff attended a public event.
2. A DHS officer instructed the Plaintiff to leave the stage area and sit down.
3. The Plaintiff immediately complied with that instruction.
4. The Plaintiff was seated on the ground and was no longer on the stage.
5. Despite complying, the Plaintiff was arrested for Public Nuisance.
6. The Plaintiff was jailed for approximately one hour.
7. The Plaintiff believes a fine of approximately $1,800 was imposed as part of the arrest
.8. The Plaintiff possesses video from the office evidence showing the Plaintiff being arrested.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The arrest was made despite the Plaintiff complying with the instructions.
2. The Defendant lacked sufficient justification to arrest the Plaintiff for Public Nuisance based on the Plaintiff's conduct shown in the evidence.
3. As a direct result of the arrest, the Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, financial damages, and inconvenience.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount of 10k.
2. Reimbursement of all fines, fees, and other financial penalties resulting from the Plaintiff's arrest.
3. Expungement of the Plaintiff's arrest and any related criminal record, if permitted by law.
4. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

EVIDENCE

P-001. Video recording of the arrest showing the Plaintiff NOT in the stage, and seated. (The arrest begins at approximately 1:44)

medal.tv

Untitled - Clipped Minecraft with Medal.tv

14 Views - Watch Untitled by Oliwag and millions of other Minecraft videos on Medal. #minecraft
medal.tv
P-002. Screen of the records of the arrest.
1783248982040.png


 
Last edited:

Motion




IN THE DISTRICT/FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO ASSIGN JUDGE

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court assign a Judge/Magistrate to this matter, as this case has remained pending without judicial assignment.

The Plaintiff requests that a judicial officer be assigned so that proceedings may begin and the case may proceed in accordance with the Court Rules and Procedures.

Respectfully submitted,

SCRGabriele180

 
SCRgabriele180 said:

Motion




IN THE DISTRICT/FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO ASSIGN JUDGE

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court assign a Judge/Magistrate to this matter, as this case has remained pending without judicial assignment.

The Plaintiff requests that a judicial officer be assigned so that proceedings may begin and the case may proceed in accordance with the Court Rules and Procedures.

Respectfully submitted,

SCRGabriele180

Click to expand...
The Court does not recognize a "Motion to Assign Judge."

Even so, we are currently handling a backlog of more than 40 cases.

There are two Magistrates and three Judges.

We are doing everything we can to address the cases.

Your continued outbursts only hinder our ability to handle the cases.

This is your final warning.
 
SCRgabriele180 said:

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONTCIVIL ACTION
CIVIL ACTION

SCRGabriele180
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff brings this civil action after being arrested by members of the Department of Homeland Security despite complying with lawful instructions given by officers. The Plaintiff believes the arrest lacked lawful justification and resulted in an unnecessary deprivation of liberty, financial loss, and other damages.

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff: SCRGabriele180.
2. Defendant: Department of Homeland Security.

II. FACTS

1. On 03 July 2026, the Plaintiff attended a public event.
2. A DHS officer instructed the Plaintiff to leave the stage area and sit down.
3. The Plaintiff immediately complied with that instruction.
4. The Plaintiff was seated on the ground and was no longer on the stage.
5. Despite complying, the Plaintiff was arrested for Public Nuisance.
6. The Plaintiff was jailed for approximately one hour.
7. The Plaintiff believes a fine of approximately $1,800 was imposed as part of the arrest
.8. The Plaintiff possesses video from the office evidence showing the Plaintiff being arrested.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The arrest was made despite the Plaintiff complying with the instructions.
2. The Defendant lacked sufficient justification to arrest the Plaintiff for Public Nuisance based on the Plaintiff's conduct shown in the evidence.
3. As a direct result of the arrest, the Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, financial damages, and inconvenience.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount of 10k.
2. Reimbursement of all fines, fees, and other financial penalties resulting from the Plaintiff's arrest.
3. Expungement of the Plaintiff's arrest and any related criminal record, if permitted by law.
4. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

EVIDENCE

P-001. Video recording of the arrest showing the Plaintiff NOT in the stage, and seated. (The arrest begins at approximately 1:44)

medal.tv

Untitled - Clipped Minecraft with Medal.tv

14 Views - Watch Untitled by Oliwag and millions of other Minecraft videos on Medal. #minecraft
medal.tv
P-002. Screen of the records of the arrest.
View attachment 89282

Click to expand...
Please resubmit the video evidence to a permanent link, once that's done I will issue summons.
 

Writ of Summons


@Matthew100x is commanded to appear in the District Court in the case of SCRGabriele180 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 159.

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.

 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SCRGabriele180
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant AFFIRMS that, on 03 July 2026, the Plaintiff attended a public event.
2. AFFIRMS that a DHS officer instructed the Plaintiff to leave the stage area OR sit down.
3. DENIES The Plaintiff immediately complied with that instruction.
4. DENIES that the Plaintiff was seated on the ground and was no longer on the stage.
5. Defendant DENIES that, despite complying, the Plaintiff was arrested for Public Nuisance.
6. AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff was jailed for approximately one hour.
7. AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff believes a fine of approximately $1,800 was imposed as part of the arrest
8. Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff possesses video from the office evidence showing the Plaintiff being arrested, the link provided by the Plaintiff is dead.

II. Defenses
1. None of the Plaintiff's claims for relief are recognised violations of any Acts imposed by Congress, loss of liberty, financial damages and inconvenience are also not recognised under the RCCA's Damages.
2. DOJ claims that the arrest was justified, and that the plaintiff was noncompliant.
3. The DOJ claims that the plaintiff was being disruptive during the event and was actively stepping onto the stage, to the point that the event host asked the DHS to remove the plaintiff. (D-001)

By making this submission, I agree that 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.

Evidence:

1788812412088.png
DATED: This 7th day of September 2026

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

SCRGabriele180
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​

The Plaintiff brings this civil action after being arrested by members of the Department of Homeland Security despite complying with lawful instructions given by officers. The Plaintiff believes the arrest lacked lawful justification and resulted in an unnecessary deprivation of liberty, financial loss, and other damages.

I. PARTIES​

  1. Plaintiff: SCRGabriele180.
  2. Defendant: Department of Homeland Security.

II. FACTS​

  1. On 03 July 2026, the Plaintiff attended a public event.
  2. A DHS officer instructed the Plaintiff to leave the stage area and sit down.
  3. The Plaintiff immediately complied with that instruction.
  4. The Plaintiff was seated on the ground and was no longer on the stage.
  5. Despite complying, the Plaintiff was arrested for Public Nuisance.
  6. The Plaintiff was jailed for approximately one hour.
  7. The Plaintiff believes a fine of approximately $1,800 was imposed as part of the arrest.
  8. The Plaintiff possesses video evidence showing the Plaintiff being arrested.
  9. The Plaintiff's submitted P-001 records the relevant incident and shows the Plaintiff not on the stage and seated when the arrest begins, at approximately 1:44.
  10. The Defendant's Answer confirms that a DHS officer instructed the Plaintiff to leave the stage area or sit down, but disputes that the Plaintiff complied and disputes that the Plaintiff was seated and no longer on the stage.
  11. The Defendant further alleges that the Plaintiff was disruptive and actively stepping onto the stage and relies upon D-001 concerning the event host's request that DHS remove the Plaintiff.
  12. The Plaintiff disputes those allegations and maintains that he had complied with the instruction and was seated away from the stage when the arrest occurred.

III. STANDING​

  1. The Plaintiff suffered an injury through the deprivation of his liberty, his detention, and the financial consequences alleged in this Complaint.
  2. The alleged injury was caused by the Defendant through the arrest and detention complained of.
  3. The Plaintiff alleges that the conduct causing the injury was unlawful because the arrest was made despite the Plaintiff's compliance with the instruction given by DHS and without sufficient lawful justification for the alleged offence.
  4. The Plaintiff seeks remedies available under applicable Redmont law, including damages and other relief requested below.

IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF — WRONGFUL ARREST OR DETENTION​

  1. The Plaintiff brings a claim under the Redmont Civil Code Act concerning Wrongful Arrest or Detention.
  2. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's officers arrested and detained him without sufficient lawful authority.
  3. The Plaintiff's position is that he had complied with the instruction to leave the stage area and sit down before the arrest occurred.
  4. The Plaintiff further alleges that the evidence of his conduct at the time of the arrest does not establish that he was then committing Public Nuisance.
  5. The Plaintiff acknowledges that the applicable law concerning Wrongful Arrest or Detention considers whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest or detention was lawful.
  6. The Plaintiff alleges that such reasonable grounds were absent or insufficient at the relevant time because the Plaintiff had complied with the instruction and was seated away from the stage when the arrest commenced.

V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF — PUBLIC NUISANCE BASIS FOR THE ARREST​

  1. The Defendant's stated justification for the arrest concerns alleged Public Nuisance.
  2. Under the Criminal Code Act, Public Nuisance requires the applicable conduct to constitute either willfully disrupting or trolling a DPA-sanctioned or government event or political rally, or interfering with the planning or execution of such an event.
  3. The Plaintiff denies that his conduct satisfied those statutory requirements.
  4. In particular, the Plaintiff denies that he willfully disrupted or trolled the event.
  5. The Plaintiff further denies that he interfered with the planning or execution of the event.
  6. The Plaintiff's presence at the event, or a request by an event host that DHS remove him, does not by itself establish the statutory conduct required for Public Nuisance.
  7. The relevant factual issue is therefore whether the Plaintiff's actual conduct satisfied the statutory requirements of Public Nuisance at the time relevant to the arrest.
  8. P-001 is directly relevant to this issue because it records the Plaintiff seated and no longer on the stage when the arrest begins.
  9. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that the Defendant lacked sufficient justification to arrest him for Public Nuisance based upon the conduct shown by the evidence.

VI. DAMAGES AND RELIEF​

  1. As a direct result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, financial damages, and inconvenience.
  2. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an amount of $10,000, subject to the Court's determination of the amount supported by the evidence and applicable law.
  3. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of all fines, fees, and other financial penalties resulting from the Plaintiff's arrest to the extent permitted by applicable law and established by the evidence.
  4. The Plaintiff seeks expungement of the Plaintiff's arrest and any related criminal record, if permitted by applicable law.
  5. The Plaintiff seeks such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

​

VII. CONCLUSION​

37. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court determine whether the Defendant's arrest and detention were lawful based upon the Plaintiff's actual conduct and the evidence submitted in this case.
38. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court determine whether the Defendant had sufficient lawful justification and reasonable grounds for the arrest at the relevant time.
  1. The Plaintiff respectfully requests the relief stated in Section VI of this Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,

SCRGabriele180
Plaintiff
 
Last edited:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BREACH OF PROCEDURE(S)/IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Plaintiff has filed a "Response to answer to complaint" which is not a recognised motion, objection or filing under the Court Rules and Procedures, Therefore, they have spoken out of turn, and their statement should be striken, The Defence would also like to point out the Plaintiff's blatant and uncorrected misuse of generative AI in their statement, a glaring violation to the BAR's Legal Code of Conduct.
The Defence would further like to note that the plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a functioning permenent link to the video of the incident, which is in violation to the presiding JO Superwoops's order.

 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Plaintiff has edited their last post, completely changing its context without permission from the court, renaming it to "amendment to complaint", under Rule 3.3: "Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint." The plaintiff did not declare their edits to the court and has completely rewritten their statement, erasing part of what they had previously said, the defence moves that the previous post be reverted or struck and, due to the magnitude of the edits made, the plaintiff be reprimanded.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The defendant hereby moves to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5, of the Court Rules and Procedures due to lack of claim and improper evidence. The Plaintiff was given a court order to provide a permanent link to their video evidence, which they failed to do, as both links uploaded are dead, both can be seen here, here or here:

medal.tv

Untitled - Clipped Minecraft with Medal.tv

14 Views - Watch Untitled by Oliwag and millions of other Minecraft videos on Medal. #minecraft
medal.tv
medal.tv

2026-07-03 23-33-32 - Clipped Imported with Medal.tv

Watch 2026-07-03 23-33-32 by Gabriele_Massari and millions of other Imported videos on Medal. #imported
medal.tv
The defence pointed this out multiple times, discovery is now over, and the Plaintiff has yet to provide us with a working link. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to cite any recognised claims for relief in their filing, therefore, the defence moves that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The plaintiff has failed to use the proper formatting rules for evidence submission under the Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 4.6, this evidence is also inadmissible according to Rule 4.2. The defendant moves that the prior post be struck from the record and would further like to point out that the plaintiff has spoken out of turn and requests that they be sanctioned in accordance with the law.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top