Lawsuit: Pending SebasLaw v. Department of Homeland Security

[SebasLaw]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

SebasLaw
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This action concerns a Murder charge imposed against the Plaintiff following the death of McBrittle419.

Before the killing occurred, the Plaintiff asked McBrittle419 for permission to kill her in order to obtain her player head for use in a museum. McBrittle419 expressly agreed to the request and subsequently stated that she had enabled consent.

The Plaintiff possesses contemporaneous chat logs documenting this conversation, including McBrittle419's agreement to the killing and her statement that consent had been enabled. McBrittle419 is also available to testify regarding her consent and the circumstances surrounding the killing.

Under the Criminal Code Act, Murder requires the unlawful killing of another player. The Criminal Terminology Act, as amended by the Murder Offences Clarification Act, provides that a killing does not constitute an unlawful killing where the killed player had the legally applicable /police consent state enabled at the time of death.

Before bringing this action, the Plaintiff also attempted to resolve the matter directly with the Department of Homeland Security through a DHS support ticket. DHS informed the Plaintiff that it could not assist him with the matter.

Having attempted to resolve the issue directly with DHS, the Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the Murder conviction and the relief provided by law.

I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff is SebasLaw, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont who was charged with and convicted of Murder arising from the death of McBrittle419.
2. The Defendant is the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the government department responsible for law enforcement and the enforcement of criminal penalties within the Commonwealth.

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff sought to obtain McBrittle419's player head for use in a museum.
2. Before killing McBrittle419, the Plaintiff asked McBrittle419 for permission to kill her for the purpose of obtaining her player head.
3. McBrittle419 expressly agreed to the Plaintiff's request.
4. McBrittle419 subsequently informed the Plaintiff through in-game chat that she had enabled consent.
5. McBrittle419's statement concerning consent occurred before the killing that formed the basis of the Murder charge.
6. Relying upon McBrittle419's express agreement and representation that consent had been enabled, the Plaintiff killed McBrittle419.
7. The killing did not occur against McBrittle419's expressed wishes. Rather, it occurred pursuant to the agreement between the Plaintiff and McBrittle419.
8. The Plaintiff possesses contemporaneous chat logs documenting the conversation preceding the killing.
9. Those chat logs include McBrittle419's agreement to the Plaintiff's request.
10. Those chat logs further include McBrittle419's representation that she had enabled consent.
11. McBrittle419 possesses firsthand knowledge concerning her consent to the killing and whether she enabled the applicable consent state before her death.
12. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the Plaintiff was subsequently charged with Murder by DHS arising from McBrittle419's death.
13. The Plaintiff disputes that the killing constituted Murder because the Plaintiff alleges that McBrittle419 had the legally applicable consent state enabled at the time of her death.
14. Before commencing this action, the Plaintiff attempted to resolve the disputed Murder charge directly with DHS.
15. The Plaintiff opened a DHS support ticket seeking assistance concerning the Murder charge.
16. DHS informed the Plaintiff through that ticket that it could not assist him with the matter.
17. The Plaintiff therefore attempted to resolve the disputed charge directly with DHS before seeking judicial relief.
18. Having been unable to obtain relief directly from DHS, the Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the Murder conviction.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — APPEAL OF SUMMARY-OFFENSE MURDER CONVICTION

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Criminal Code Act defines Murder as a summary offence committed when a person unlawfully kills another player.
3. The Criminal Code Act preserves a player's right to appeal a summary-offense conviction in court.
4. The Criminal Terminology Act, as amended by the Murder Offences Clarification Act, defines what constitutes an “unlawful killing” for purposes of Murder.
5. Under Section 10 of the Criminal Terminology Act, an unlawful killing requires, among other things, that the killed player did not have /police consent enabled at the time of death.
6. Section 10 further provides that a killing which does not satisfy the statutory definition of an unlawful killing is a lawful killing and does not constitute an offence under the Criminal Code Act.
7. McBrittle419 expressly agreed to be killed by the Plaintiff.
8. Before the killing occurred, McBrittle419 represented to the Plaintiff that she had enabled consent.
9. The Plaintiff alleges that McBrittle419 had the legally applicable consent state enabled at the time of her death.
10. If McBrittle419 had the applicable consent state enabled at the time of death, the killing does not satisfy the statutory definition of an unlawful killing.
11. Without an unlawful killing, an essential element of Murder is absent.
12. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court review the Murder conviction and overturn it if the evidence establishes that McBrittle419 had the applicable consent state enabled at the time of her death.

A. THE SUMMARY CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. The Criminal Code Act expressly preserves the right of players to appeal summary-offense convictions in court.
2. Redmont courts have previously reviewed Murder convictions imposed through DHS enforcement procedures.
3. In Muggy21 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 86, the Court recognized that DHS plugin evidence may constitute prima facie evidence of criminal conduct but may be rebutted by credible contrary evidence.
4. The Plaintiff does not ask the Court to disregard DHS records merely because a Murder charge was generated.
5. Rather, the Plaintiff asks the Court to consider all available evidence, including contemporaneous chat logs and testimony from the alleged victim herself, in determining whether the statutory elements of Murder were actually satisfied.

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND VICTIM TESTIMONY

1. The Plaintiff's claim does not rest solely upon his own assertion that McBrittle419 consented.
2. The Plaintiff possesses contemporaneous chat logs documenting the conversation between the Plaintiff and McBrittle419 before the killing.
3. Those logs show the Plaintiff asking McBrittle419 for permission to kill her in order to obtain her player head for a museum.
4. Those logs show McBrittle419 agreeing to the Plaintiff's request.
5. Those logs further show McBrittle419 stating that she had enabled consent before the killing occurred.
6. McBrittle419 herself is available as a witness.
7. McBrittle419 possesses firsthand knowledge concerning her agreement to the killing.
8. McBrittle419 also possesses firsthand knowledge concerning whether she enabled the applicable consent state before her death.
9. The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court consider the documentary evidence together with McBrittle419's testimony in determining whether the killing constituted an unlawful killing.

C. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

1. Before filing this action, the Plaintiff attempted to resolve the disputed Murder charge directly with DHS.
2. The Plaintiff opened a DHS support ticket concerning the charge and requested assistance.
3. DHS informed the Plaintiff that it could not assist him with the matter.
4. The Plaintiff therefore made a good-faith attempt to resolve the disputed charge through DHS before seeking judicial intervention.
5. The Plaintiff has exhausted the available DHS avenue presented to him for obtaining relief concerning the disputed charge.
6. Judicial review is therefore necessary for the Plaintiff to challenge the Murder conviction and obtain any relief to which he may be entitled under law.

D. STATUTORY RELIEF

1. The Criminal Code Act provides that players retain the right to appeal summary-offense convictions in court.
2. The Criminal Code Act further provides that where a summary-offense conviction is overturned, DHS shall refund the fine imposed for that conviction in full.
3. The Criminal Code Act additionally provides compensation where an individual is found not guilty after punishment has already been imposed, subject to the requirements and limitations established by law.
4. Accordingly, if the Court determines that the Murder offence was not proven, the Plaintiff requests the reimbursement and compensation authorized by law for the punishment actually imposed upon him.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Review the Plaintiff's summary-offense Murder conviction arising from the death of McBrittle419;
2. Determine whether McBrittle419 had the legally applicable /police consent state enabled at the time of her death;
3. Find that, if McBrittle419 had the applicable consent state enabled at the time of her death, the killing did not constitute an unlawful killing under Section 10 of the Criminal Terminology Act;
4. Find the Murder offence unproven and find the Plaintiff not guilty of Murder if the evidence establishes that McBrittle419 had the applicable consent state enabled;
5. Overturn the Plaintiff's Murder conviction;
6. Order DHS to remove, expunge, or otherwise correct the Murder conviction on the Plaintiff's criminal record as necessary to accurately reflect the Court's ruling;
7. Order DHS to reimburse in full any fine imposed upon the Plaintiff as a result of the overturned Murder conviction;
8. Award the Plaintiff any statutory compensation to which he is entitled for imprisonment or other punishment actually imposed as a result of the Murder conviction;
9. Award any court costs or other relief available under law; and
10. Grant such other lawful and equitable relief as the Court determines just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001 - Chat logs showing the Plaintiff asking McBrittle419 for permission to kill her for the purpose of obtaining her player head for a museum.
Chat logs showing McBrittle419 agreeing to the Plaintiff's request.
Chat logs showing McBrittle419 stating, prior to the killing, that she had enabled consent.

Spoiler: P-001

P-002 — Screenshot(s) of the Plaintiff's DHS support ticket showing the Plaintiff's attempt to obtain assistance concerning the Murder charge and DHS's response that it could not assist him.

Spoiler: p-002

P-003 — Screenshot, record, or other documentation showing the Murder charge, conviction, fine, imprisonment, and/or other punishment imposed upon the Plaintiff, if available.

Spoiler: p-003

VI. WITNESSES

1. McBrittle419

McBrittle419 is a material witness because she:

a. was the player whose death formed the basis of the Plaintiff's Murder charge;

b. personally participated in the conversation preceding the killing;

c. possesses firsthand knowledge concerning her consent to the Plaintiff killing her;

d. can authenticate and explain her statements contained within the chat logs; and

e. possesses firsthand knowledge concerning whether she enabled the applicable consent state before her death.

1. SebasLaw

The Plaintiff may testify concerning:

a. the reason he requested McBrittle419's player head;

b. the conversation preceding the killing;

c. McBrittle419's agreement to the killing;

d. McBrittle419's statement that she had enabled consent;

e. the circumstances of the killing;

f. the subsequent Murder charge;

g. any fine, imprisonment, or other punishment imposed as a result; and

h. the Plaintiff's subsequent attempt to resolve the matter through a DHS support ticket.

VII. ANTICIPATED DISCOVERY

1. To the extent permitted by the Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiff anticipates seeking relevant DHS and/or server records concerning:

a. the Murder charge imposed against the Plaintiff;

b. the time and circumstances of McBrittle419's death;

c. the /police consent state applicable to McBrittle419 at the time of death;

d. any available records reflecting activation or deactivation of the applicable consent state;

e. the basis upon which DHS imposed the Murder charge against the Plaintiff; and

f. the fine, imprisonment, criminal record, or other punishment resulting from the Murder conviction.

1. The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional relevant evidence obtained during discovery in accordance with the Court Rules and Procedures.

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 2nd day of October 2026

Respectfully submitted,

SebasLaw
Plaintiff, Pro Se

 

[CreeperTD]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before considering this Complaint, a multitude of issues must be resolved by Plaintiff with both the formatting and the substance of their filing:

1. As stated in Rule 1.10, all laws cited must be hyperlinked directly to their reference. The court orders that Plaintiff hyperlink all legal citations throughout their Complaint.
2. What is this list of "Prayers for Relief?" This is not the section for a Plaintiff to make requests for legal judgements at all! That section is designated as the section where a Plaintiff requests relief. Counselors do not receive legal judgements from Judicial Officers except through Court Orders for legal proceedings, or upon the accepting of a Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law, as detailed in Rule 9.2. Amend this section to be in line with it's purpose, with Prayers for Relief authorized by the Redmont Civil Code Act.
3. Upon what legal authority does Plaintiff call upon for the Court to revoke the summary conviction of Murder? A vague citation of "The Criminal Code Act" or "The Criminal Terminology Act" is not a valid legal citation in any circumstance. Cite specific sections with your citations, otherwise they are worthless.
4. Is there any evidence beyond witness testimony and statements by the victim of the murder offense to support the claim made by Plaintiff? If so, where is it?
5. What is this "anticipated discovery" section? It is not present in the Guide - Templates at all, and certainly does not appear to belong in an initial complaint. Rule 3.1 requires that "All answers... must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format," which is the Templates Guide provided by the court. Defend it's existence or strike it.

This order must be complied with by Plaintiff within 48 hours or this Action shall be dismissed.

So Ordered.

 

[SebasLaw]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before considering this Complaint, a multitude of issues must be resolved by Plaintiff with both the formatting and the substance of their filing:

1. As stated in Rule 1.10, all laws cited must be hyperlinked directly to their reference. The court orders that Plaintiff hyperlink all legal citations throughout their Complaint.
2. What is this list of "Prayers for Relief?" This is not the section for a Plaintiff to make requests for legal judgements at all! That section is designated as the section where a Plaintiff requests relief. Counselors do not receive legal judgements from Judicial Officers except through Court Orders for legal proceedings, or upon the accepting of a Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law, as detailed in Rule 9.2. Amend this section to be in line with it's purpose, with Prayers for Relief authorized by the Redmont Civil Code Act.
3. Upon what legal authority does Plaintiff call upon for the Court to revoke the summary conviction of Murder? A vague citation of "The Criminal Code Act" or "The Criminal Terminology Act" is not a valid legal citation in any circumstance. Cite specific sections with your citations, otherwise they are worthless.
4. Is there any evidence beyond witness testimony and statements by the victim of the murder offense to support the claim made by Plaintiff? If so, where is it?
5. What is this "anticipated discovery" section? It is not present in the Guide - Templates at all, and certainly does not appear to belong in an initial complaint. Rule 3.1 requires that "All answers... must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format," which is the Templates Guide provided by the court. Defend it's existence or strike it.

This order must be complied with by Plaintiff within 48 hours or this Action shall be dismissed.

So Ordered.

Alright, I'll submit my amended complaint shortly.

 

[SebasLaw]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

SebasLaw

Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security

Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

This action concerns a summary-offense Murder conviction imposed against the Plaintiff following the death of McBrittle419.

Before the killing occurred, the Plaintiff asked McBrittle419 for permission to kill her in order to obtain her player head for use in a museum. McBrittle419 expressly agreed to the request and subsequently stated that she had enabled consent.

The Plaintiff possesses contemporaneous chat logs documenting this conversation, including McBrittle419's agreement to the killing and her statement that consent had been enabled. McBrittle419 is also available to testify regarding her consent and the circumstances surrounding the killing.

The Plaintiff contends that McBrittle419 had /consent enabled at the time of death. Under Section 10 of the Criminal Terminology Act, a killing does not constitute an "unlawful killing" where the killed player had /consent enabled at the time of death. Because Part IV, Section 3 of the Criminal Code Act requires an unlawful killing for the offense of Murder, the Plaintiff contends that his conduct did not satisfy the elements of Murder.

Before bringing this action, the Plaintiff attempted to resolve the matter directly with the Department of Homeland Security through a DHS support ticket. DHS informed the Plaintiff that it could not assist him.

The Plaintiff therefore exercises his statutory right under Part I, Section 6(6)(d) of the Criminal Code Act to appeal his summary-offense conviction in court.

I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff is SebasLaw, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont who was charged with and convicted of the summary offense of Murder arising from the death of McBrittle419.
2. The Defendant is the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the government department responsible for law enforcement and enforcement of the summary conviction at issue.

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff sought to obtain McBrittle419's player head for use in a museum.
2. Before killing McBrittle419, the Plaintiff asked McBrittle419 for permission to kill her for that purpose.
3. McBrittle419 expressly agreed to the Plaintiff's request.
4. Before the killing occurred, McBrittle419 informed the Plaintiff through in-game chat that she had enabled consent.
5. Relying upon McBrittle419's express agreement and representation that consent had been enabled, the Plaintiff killed McBrittle419.
6. The killing occurred pursuant to the agreement between the Plaintiff and McBrittle419.
7. The Plaintiff possesses contemporaneous chat logs documenting the conversation preceding the killing.
8. Those chat logs show McBrittle419 agreeing to the Plaintiff's request.
9. Those chat logs further show McBrittle419 stating before the killing that she had enabled consent.
10. McBrittle419 possesses firsthand knowledge concerning her consent to the killing and whether she enabled /consent before her death.
11. DHS subsequently charged and convicted the Plaintiff of Murder arising from McBrittle419's death.
12. The Plaintiff disputes the Murder conviction because the Plaintiff alleges that McBrittle419 had /consent enabled at the time of her death.
13. Before commencing this action, the Plaintiff attempted to resolve the disputed Murder conviction directly with DHS.
14. The Plaintiff opened a DHS support ticket seeking assistance concerning the Murder conviction.
15. DHS informed the Plaintiff through that ticket that it could not assist him with the matter.
16. Having been unable to obtain relief directly from DHS, the Plaintiff now exercises his statutory right to appeal the summary-offense conviction in court.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — APPEAL OF SUMMARY-OFFENSE MURDER CONVICTION

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. Part IV, Section 3 of the Criminal Code Act classifies Murder as a Summary Offence and provides that a person commits Murder where that person unlawfully kills another player.
3. Accordingly, an "unlawful killing" is a necessary element of the Murder offense.
4. Section 10(1) of the Criminal Terminology Act provides that, for purposes of Part IV of the Criminal Code Act, an "unlawful killing" means causing the death of another player when:

(a) the killed player did not have /consent enabled at the time of death; and

(b) the killing was not justified under one of the statutory exceptions contained within that section.

1. Section 10(2) further provides that a killing which does not meet the definition in subsection (1) is a lawful killing and does not constitute an offense under the Criminal Code Act.
2. McBrittle419 expressly agreed to be killed by the Plaintiff.
3. Before the killing occurred, McBrittle419 represented to the Plaintiff that she had enabled consent.
4. The Plaintiff alleges that McBrittle419 had /consent enabled at the time of her death.
5. If McBrittle419 had /consent enabled at the time of death, the killing does not satisfy Section 10(1)(a)'s definition of an unlawful killing.
6. If the killing was not an unlawful killing, the Plaintiff's conduct did not satisfy the essential "unlawfully kills another player" element of Murder under Part IV, Section 3 of the Criminal Code Act.

A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL THE SUMMARY CONVICTION

1. The Plaintiff's legal authority to challenge the summary conviction is Part I, Section 6(6)(d) of the Criminal Code Act, which expressly provides that players retain the right to appeal their summary-offense convictions in court.
2. Part I, Section 6(6)(d) further expressly contemplates a summary-offense conviction being overturned and provides that, where a player was fined under the Act and the conviction is overturned, DHS shall refund the fine in full.
3. Part I, Section 7(2) of the Criminal Code Act independently confirms the ability to challenge such an offense by defining a Summary Offence as an offense which may be dealt with by immediate penalty without a formal trial and providing that it may be contested before a judicial officer after issue.
4. Murder is expressly classified as a Summary Offence under Part IV, Section 3 of the Criminal Code Act.
5. Accordingly, the Plaintiff invokes Part I, Sections 6(6)(d) and 7(2) of the Criminal Code Act as the specific statutory authority permitting judicial review and, if warranted by the evidence, the overturning of the Plaintiff's summary-offense Murder conviction.

B. EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THE APPEAL

1. The Plaintiff's appeal is supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence in addition to witness testimony.
2. P-001 consists of contemporaneous in-game chat logs documenting the conversation between the Plaintiff and McBrittle419 before the killing.
3. Those chat logs show the Plaintiff asking McBrittle419 for permission to kill her in order to obtain her player head for a museum.
4. Those chat logs show McBrittle419 agreeing to the Plaintiff's request.
5. Those chat logs further show McBrittle419 stating before the killing that she had enabled consent.
6. McBrittle419 is additionally identified as a witness because she possesses firsthand knowledge concerning her consent and whether she enabled /consent before her death.
7. P-002 documents the Plaintiff's attempt to obtain assistance from DHS concerning the disputed Murder conviction and DHS's response.
8. P-003 documents the Murder charge, conviction, fine, imprisonment, and/or other punishment imposed upon the Plaintiff.
9. The Plaintiff does not presently possess independent server-side records establishing the status of McBrittle419's /consent setting at the precise moment of death.
10. The Plaintiff does not represent that McBrittle419's statement itself constitutes a server-side record. Rather, the Plaintiff submits the contemporaneous chat logs as documentary evidence supporting his factual allegation that consent had been enabled.

C. PRIOR ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE MATTER WITH DHS

1. Before filing this action, the Plaintiff attempted to resolve the disputed Murder conviction directly with DHS.
2. The Plaintiff opened a DHS support ticket concerning the conviction and requested assistance.
3. DHS informed the Plaintiff that it could not assist him with the matter.
4. The Plaintiff therefore made a good-faith attempt to resolve the disputed conviction directly with DHS before seeking judicial relief.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:

1. Full reimbursement of any fine paid by the Plaintiff as a result of the Murder conviction, pursuant to Part I, Section 6(6)(d) of the Criminal Code Act, should the Plaintiff's summary-offense conviction be overturned;
2. Compensation of $50 per minute for any imprisonment actually served by the Plaintiff for the Murder offense, to the extent authorized by Part I, Section 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Act should the Plaintiff be found not guilty after punishment was imposed; and
3. Legal fees pursuant to Part III, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act should the Plaintiff prevail.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001 — Contemporaneous chat logs showing:

a. the Plaintiff asking McBrittle419 for permission to kill her for the purpose of obtaining her player head for a museum;

b. McBrittle419 agreeing to the Plaintiff's request; and

c. McBrittle419 stating before the killing that she had enabled consent.

Spoiler: P-001

1790969314807.png

P-002 — Screenshot(s) of the Plaintiff's DHS support ticket showing the Plaintiff's attempt to obtain assistance concerning the Murder conviction and DHS's response that it could not assist him.

Spoiler: P-002

1790969360536.png

P-003 — Screenshot, record, or other documentation showing the Murder charge, conviction, fine, imprisonment, and/or other punishment imposed upon the Plaintiff.

Spoiler: P-003

1790969377632.png

VI. WITNESSES

1. McBrittle419

McBrittle419 is a material witness because she:

a. was the player whose death formed the basis of the Plaintiff's Murder conviction;

b. personally participated in the conversation preceding the killing;

c. possesses firsthand knowledge concerning her consent to the Plaintiff killing her;

d. can authenticate and explain her statements contained within the chat logs; and

e. possesses firsthand knowledge concerning whether she enabled /consent before her death.

1. SebasLaw

The Plaintiff may testify concerning:

a. the reason he requested McBrittle419's player head;

b. the conversation preceding the killing;

c. McBrittle419's agreement to the killing;

d. McBrittle419's statement that she had enabled consent;

e. the circumstances of the killing;

f. the subsequent Murder conviction;

g. any fine, imprisonment, or other punishment imposed as a result; and

h. the Plaintiff's subsequent attempt to resolve the matter through a DHS support ticket.

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 2nd day of October 2026

Respectfully submitted,

SebasLaw

Plaintiff, Pro Se