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 DHS Officer RaiTheGuy07's warrantless entry onto the Plaintiff's private property at Plot C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was located inside his private property at C122. The property contained signs explicitly stating “DO NOT ENTER,” making clear that entry onto the property was restricted.

Despite this, RaiTheGuy07 entered the property through an iron block elevator without a warrant, located the Plaintiff inside, and arrested him in connection with an alleged Murder.

The Plaintiff is unaware of any arrest warrant authorizing RaiTheGuy07 to enter C122 to effectuate the arrest.

Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act specifically provides for an Arrest Warrant to authorize a DHS officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual. The Constitution further protects citizens against unreasonable search or seizure and deprivation of liberty contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

The Plaintiff therefore brings this action against the Department of Homeland Security for the allegedly unauthorized entry onto his private property and the resulting arrest.

I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff is SebasLaw, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the individual whose private property was entered and who was subsequently arrested.
2. The Defendant is the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the government department responsible for law enforcement within the Commonwealth.
3. RaiTheGuy07 was, at all relevant times, acting in his official capacity as an officer and agent of DHS.
4. The conduct complained of in this action occurred while RaiTheGuy07 was performing his law-enforcement duties on behalf of DHS.

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff possessed and controlled private property located at Plot C122.
2. The Plaintiff was inside C122 at the time of the events giving rise to this action.
3. Access to the relevant area of C122 was expressly restricted.
4. The Plaintiff had placed signs at the property explicitly stating “DO NOT ENTER.”
5. Those signs provided notice that individuals did not have the Plaintiff's permission to enter the restricted property.
6. RaiTheGuy07 came to C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.
7. RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 through an iron block elevator.
8. The Plaintiff did not give RaiTheGuy07 permission to enter C122.
9. After entering C122, RaiTheGuy07 located the Plaintiff inside the property.
10. RaiTheGuy07 then arrested the Plaintiff in connection with an alleged Murder offence.
11. The Plaintiff is unaware of any arrest warrant having been obtained before RaiTheGuy07 entered C122.
12. The Plaintiff is unaware of any warrant having been presented to him or otherwise identified as the legal authority permitting RaiTheGuy07 to enter C122.
13. Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act provides that an Arrest Warrant authorizes an authorised officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual.
14. The Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 to arrest him without obtaining the warrant contemplated by Part IV §4 of the Judicial Standards Act.
15. The Plaintiff's arrest occurred only after RaiTheGuy07 entered the restricted private property and located the Plaintiff inside.
16. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that DHS, through the actions of RaiTheGuy07, violated the Plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS ACT

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act provides that an Arrest Warrant authorizes an authorised officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual.
3. The statutory existence and purpose of an Arrest Warrant specifically addresses the circumstances present here: entry onto private property for the purpose of arresting a wanted individual.
4. C122 was private property controlled by the Plaintiff.
5. RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff did not consent to RaiTheGuy07 entering C122.
7. The Plaintiff is unaware of any Arrest Warrant having been obtained authorizing entry onto C122.
8. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 lacked the warrant authorization contemplated by Part IV §4 of the Judicial Standards Act when he entered the Plaintiff's private property to effectuate the arrest.
9. Because RaiTheGuy07 was acting within the scope of his duties as a DHS officer, the Plaintiff brings this action against DHS for the resulting violation.

COUNT II — UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont guarantees that every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
3. RaiTheGuy07 entered the Plaintiff's restricted private property without the Plaintiff's consent.
4. The purpose of that entry was to locate and arrest the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 did so without obtaining an Arrest Warrant authorizing entry onto the property.
6. RaiTheGuy07 subsequently seized the Plaintiff's person by arresting him after entering the property.
7. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that the warrantless entry onto his private property and resulting seizure of his person constituted an unreasonable search and/or seizure in violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

COUNT III — DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY CONTRARY TO FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
3. RaiTheGuy07 deprived the Plaintiff of his liberty by arresting and detaining him.
4. The Plaintiff does not allege that DHS lacks authority to arrest wanted individuals generally.
5. Rather, the Plaintiff alleges that the manner in which this arrest was accomplished was unlawful because RaiTheGuy07 entered private property without the warrant authorization required to lawfully effectuate an arrest through entry onto private property.
6. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that his resulting deprivation of liberty was not carried out in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

COUNT IV — ALEXANDERLOVE PRECEDENT

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. In AlexanderLove v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, the Federal Court considered an arrest in which a law-enforcement officer entered the Plaintiff's private property to carry out an arrest without first securing an arrest warrant.
3. The Federal Court upheld the claims arising from that conduct.
4. The Court found that the officer's entry onto private property and subsequent arrest violated the Plaintiff's constitutional protections against unreasonable search or seizure and deprivation of liberty contrary to fundamental justice.
5. The Court further found that the officer's failure to secure an arrest warrant violated the Judicial Standards Act.
6. The Court held the Commonwealth responsible for the conduct of its law-enforcement agent.
7. The material circumstances alleged in the present action are substantially similar: a DHS officer entered the Plaintiff's private property for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff without an Arrest Warrant authorizing that entry.
8. The Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court apply the same principles recognized in AlexanderLove to the conduct at issue here.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Declare that RaiTheGuy07's entry onto Plot C122 without an Arrest Warrant was unlawful;
2. Declare that DHS, through RaiTheGuy07, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure;
3. Declare that the resulting arrest violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice;
4. Award compensatory damages in an amount the Court determines appropriate for the unlawful entry and resulting arrest;
5. Award nominal damages where appropriate for the violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights;
6. Award punitive damages if the Court determines that the Defendant's conduct satisfies the applicable legal standard for such damages;
7. Order DHS to investigate the circumstances surrounding the warrantless entry and arrest and take any corrective action the Court considers appropriate;
8. Award any court costs or other recoverable expenses permitted by law; and
9. Grant such other lawful and equitable relief as the Court determines just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001 — Screenshot(s) showing Plot C122 and the “DO NOT ENTER” signs restricting entry onto the property.

Spoiler: P-001

P-002 — Screenshot(s), records, or other documentation concerning the Plaintiff's arrest and the charge associated with the arrest, if available.

Spoiler: P-002

VI. WITNESSES

1. SebasLaw

The Plaintiff possesses firsthand knowledge concerning:

a. his ownership and/or control of Plot C122;

b. the placement and existence of the “DO NOT ENTER” signs;

c. his presence inside C122 at the time of the incident;

d. RaiTheGuy07's entry into C122 through the iron block elevator;

e. the Plaintiff's lack of consent to RaiTheGuy07 entering the property;

f. RaiTheGuy07 locating the Plaintiff inside C122; and

g. the subsequent arrest.

1. RaiTheGuy07

RaiTheGuy07 possesses firsthand knowledge concerning:

a. his reason for going to C122;

b. the manner in which he entered C122;

c. his purpose for entering the property;

d. whether he observed or was aware of the restrictions on entry;

e. the circumstances under which he located and arrested the Plaintiff;

f. the legal authority upon which he relied when entering the property; and

g. whether an Arrest Warrant had been obtained before the entry and arrest.

VII. ANTICIPATED DISCOVERY

1. The Plaintiff anticipates seeking discovery concerning whether DHS or RaiTheGuy07 obtained an Arrest Warrant before entering C122.
2. The Plaintiff anticipates seeking any warrant application, issued warrant, DHS log, communication, arrest record, or other documentation concerning the authorization for RaiTheGuy07 to enter C122.
3. The Plaintiff anticipates seeking relevant DHS records identifying the circumstances and legal authority relied upon for the Plaintiff's arrest.
4. The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional evidence obtained through 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]

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



I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff is SebasLaw, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the individual whose private property was entered and who was subsequently arrested.
2. The Defendant is the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the government department responsible for law enforcement within the Commonwealth.
3. RaiTheGuy07 was, at all relevant times, acting in his official capacity as an officer and agent of DHS.
4. The conduct complained of in this action occurred while RaiTheGuy07 was performing his law-enforcement duties on behalf of DHS.

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff possessed and controlled private property located at Plot C122.
2. The Plaintiff was inside C122 at the time of the events giving rise to this action.
3. Access to the relevant area of C122 was expressly restricted.
4. The Plaintiff had placed signs at the property explicitly stating “DO NOT ENTER.”
5. Those signs provided notice that individuals did not have the Plaintiff's permission to enter the restricted property.
6. RaiTheGuy07 came to C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.
7. RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 through an iron block elevator.
8. The Plaintiff did not give RaiTheGuy07 permission to enter C122.
9. After entering C122, RaiTheGuy07 located the Plaintiff inside the property.
10. RaiTheGuy07 then arrested the Plaintiff in connection with an alleged Murder offence.
11. The Plaintiff is unaware of any arrest warrant having been obtained before RaiTheGuy07 entered C122.
12. The Plaintiff is unaware of any warrant having been presented to him or otherwise identified as the legal authority permitting RaiTheGuy07 to enter C122.
13. Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act provides that an Arrest Warrant authorizes an authorised officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual.
14. The Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 to arrest him without obtaining the warrant contemplated by Part IV §4 of the Judicial Standards Act.
15. The Plaintiff's arrest occurred only after RaiTheGuy07 entered the restricted private property and located the Plaintiff inside.
16. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that DHS, through the actions of RaiTheGuy07, violated the Plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS ACT

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act provides that an Arrest Warrant authorizes an authorised officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual.
3. The statutory existence and purpose of an Arrest Warrant specifically addresses the circumstances present here: entry onto private property for the purpose of arresting a wanted individual.
4. C122 was private property controlled by the Plaintiff.
5. RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff did not consent to RaiTheGuy07 entering C122.
7. The Plaintiff is unaware of any Arrest Warrant having been obtained authorizing entry onto C122.
8. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 lacked the warrant authorization contemplated by Part IV §4 of the Judicial Standards Act when he entered the Plaintiff's private property to effectuate the arrest.
9. Because RaiTheGuy07 was acting within the scope of his duties as a DHS officer, the Plaintiff brings this action against DHS for the resulting violation.

COUNT II — UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont guarantees that every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
3. RaiTheGuy07 entered the Plaintiff's restricted private property without the Plaintiff's consent.
4. The purpose of that entry was to locate and arrest the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 did so without obtaining an Arrest Warrant authorizing entry onto the property.
6. RaiTheGuy07 subsequently seized the Plaintiff's person by arresting him after entering the property.
7. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that the warrantless entry onto his private property and resulting seizure of his person constituted an unreasonable search and/or seizure in violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

COUNT III — DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY CONTRARY TO FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
3. RaiTheGuy07 deprived the Plaintiff of his liberty by arresting and detaining him.
4. The Plaintiff does not allege that DHS lacks authority to arrest wanted individuals generally.
5. Rather, the Plaintiff alleges that the manner in which this arrest was accomplished was unlawful because RaiTheGuy07 entered private property without the warrant authorization required to lawfully effectuate an arrest through entry onto private property.
6. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that his resulting deprivation of liberty was not carried out in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

COUNT IV — ALEXANDERLOVE PRECEDENT

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. In AlexanderLove v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, the Federal Court considered an arrest in which a law-enforcement officer entered the Plaintiff's private property to carry out an arrest without first securing an arrest warrant.
3. The Federal Court upheld the claims arising from that conduct.
4. The Court found that the officer's entry onto private property and subsequent arrest violated the Plaintiff's constitutional protections against unreasonable search or seizure and deprivation of liberty contrary to fundamental justice.
5. The Court further found that the officer's failure to secure an arrest warrant violated the Judicial Standards Act.
6. The Court held the Commonwealth responsible for the conduct of its law-enforcement agent.
7. The material circumstances alleged in the present action are substantially similar: a DHS officer entered the Plaintiff's private property for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff without an Arrest Warrant authorizing that entry.
8. The Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court apply the same principles recognized in AlexanderLove to the conduct at issue here.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Declare that RaiTheGuy07's entry onto Plot C122 without an Arrest Warrant was unlawful;
2. Declare that DHS, through RaiTheGuy07, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure;
3. Declare that the resulting arrest violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice;
4. Award compensatory damages in an amount the Court determines appropriate for the unlawful entry and resulting arrest;
5. Award nominal damages where appropriate for the violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights;
6. Award punitive damages if the Court determines that the Defendant's conduct satisfies the applicable legal standard for such damages;
7. Order DHS to investigate the circumstances surrounding the warrantless entry and arrest and take any corrective action the Court considers appropriate;
8. Award any court costs or other recoverable expenses permitted by law; and
9. Grant such other lawful and equitable relief as the Court determines just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001 — Screenshot(s) showing Plot C122 and the “DO NOT ENTER” signs restricting entry onto the property.

Spoiler: P-001

View attachment 100876View attachment 100877View attachment 100878

P-002 — Screenshot(s), records, or other documentation concerning the Plaintiff's arrest and the charge associated with the arrest, if available.

Spoiler: P-002

View attachment 100875

VI. WITNESSES

1. SebasLaw

The Plaintiff possesses firsthand knowledge concerning:

a. his ownership and/or control of Plot C122;

b. the placement and existence of the “DO NOT ENTER” signs;

c. his presence inside C122 at the time of the incident;

d. RaiTheGuy07's entry into C122 through the iron block elevator;

e. the Plaintiff's lack of consent to RaiTheGuy07 entering the property;

f. RaiTheGuy07 locating the Plaintiff inside C122; and

g. the subsequent arrest.

1. RaiTheGuy07

RaiTheGuy07 possesses firsthand knowledge concerning:

a. his reason for going to C122;

b. the manner in which he entered C122;

c. his purpose for entering the property;

d. whether he observed or was aware of the restrictions on entry;

e. the circumstances under which he located and arrested the Plaintiff;

f. the legal authority upon which he relied when entering the property; and

g. whether an Arrest Warrant had been obtained before the entry and arrest.

VII. ANTICIPATED DISCOVERY

1. The Plaintiff anticipates seeking discovery concerning whether DHS or RaiTheGuy07 obtained an Arrest Warrant before entering C122.
2. The Plaintiff anticipates seeking any warrant application, issued warrant, DHS log, communication, arrest record, or other documentation concerning the authorization for RaiTheGuy07 to enter C122.
3. The Plaintiff anticipates seeking relevant DHS records identifying the circumstances and legal authority relied upon for the Plaintiff's arrest.
4. The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional evidence obtained through 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

The Court orders Plaintiff to hyperlink all legal authorities, to remove the erroneous Section VII, and to state what proof or witness testimony they currently rely upon to make their factual claims.

 

[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 DHS Officer RaiTheGuy07's entry onto the Plaintiff's private property at Plot C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was located inside his private property at C122. The property contained signs explicitly stating “DO NOT ENTER,” making clear that entry onto the property was restricted.

Despite these restrictions, RaiTheGuy07 entered the property through an iron block elevator without the Plaintiff's permission, located the Plaintiff inside, and arrested him in connection with an alleged Murder.

The Plaintiff is unaware of any Arrest Warrant having been obtained that authorized RaiTheGuy07 to enter C122 to effectuate the arrest.

Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act provides for an Arrest Warrant authorizing an officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual. The Constitution further protects citizens against unreasonable search or seizure and deprivation of liberty contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

The Plaintiff therefore brings this action against the Department of Homeland Security for the allegedly unauthorized entry onto his private property and the resulting arrest.

I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff is SebasLaw, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and the individual whose private property was entered and who was subsequently arrested.
2. The Defendant is the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the government department responsible for law enforcement within the Commonwealth.
3. RaiTheGuy07 was, at all relevant times, acting in his official capacity as an officer and agent of DHS.
4. The conduct complained of in this action occurred while RaiTheGuy07 was performing his law-enforcement duties on behalf of DHS.

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff possessed and controlled private property located at Plot C122.
2. The Plaintiff was inside C122 at the time of the events giving rise to this action.
3. Access to the relevant area of C122 was expressly restricted.
4. The Plaintiff had placed signs at the property explicitly stating “DO NOT ENTER.”
5. Those signs provided notice that individuals did not have the Plaintiff's permission to enter the restricted property.
6. RaiTheGuy07 came to C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.
7. RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 through an iron block elevator.
8. The Plaintiff did not give RaiTheGuy07 permission to enter C122.
9. After entering C122, RaiTheGuy07 located the Plaintiff inside the property.
10. RaiTheGuy07 then arrested the Plaintiff in connection with an alleged Murder offense.
11. The Plaintiff is unaware of any Arrest Warrant having been obtained before RaiTheGuy07 entered C122.
12. The Plaintiff is unaware of any warrant having been presented to him or otherwise identified as the legal authority permitting RaiTheGuy07 to enter C122.
13. Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act provides that an Arrest Warrant authorizes an authorised officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual.
14. The Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 to arrest him without the warrant authorization contemplated by Part IV §4 of the Judicial Standards Act.
15. The Plaintiff's arrest occurred only after RaiTheGuy07 entered the restricted private property and located the Plaintiff inside.
16. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that DHS, through the actions of RaiTheGuy07, violated the Plaintiff's statutory and constitutional rights.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS ACT

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. Part IV §4(1) of the Judicial Standards Act provides that an Arrest Warrant authorizes an authorised officer to enter private property and arrest a wanted individual.
3. The statutory existence and purpose of an Arrest Warrant specifically addresses the circumstances present here: entry onto private property for the purpose of arresting a wanted individual.
4. C122 was private property controlled by the Plaintiff.
5. RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 for the purpose of locating and arresting the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff did not consent to RaiTheGuy07 entering C122.
7. The Plaintiff is unaware of any Arrest Warrant having been obtained authorizing entry onto C122.
8. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 lacked the warrant authorization contemplated by Part IV §4 of the Judicial Standards Act when he entered the Plaintiff's private property to effectuate the arrest.
9. Because RaiTheGuy07 was acting within the scope of his duties as a DHS officer, the Plaintiff brings this action against DHS for the resulting violation.

COUNT II — UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont guarantees citizens the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
3. RaiTheGuy07 entered the Plaintiff's restricted private property without the Plaintiff's consent.
4. The purpose of that entry was to locate and arrest the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff alleges that RaiTheGuy07 did so without obtaining an Arrest Warrant authorizing entry onto the property.
6. RaiTheGuy07 subsequently seized the Plaintiff's person by arresting him after entering the property.
7. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that the warrantless entry onto his private property and resulting seizure of his person constituted an unreasonable search and/or seizure in violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

COUNT III — DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY CONTRARY TO FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont guarantees citizens the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
3. RaiTheGuy07 deprived the Plaintiff of his liberty by arresting and detaining him.
4. The Plaintiff does not allege that DHS lacks authority to arrest wanted individuals generally.
5. Rather, the Plaintiff alleges that the manner in which this arrest was accomplished was unlawful because RaiTheGuy07 entered private property without the warrant authorization required to lawfully effectuate an arrest through entry onto private property.
6. The Plaintiff therefore alleges that his resulting deprivation of liberty was not carried out in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

COUNT IV — ALEXANDERLOVE PRECEDENT

1. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated herein.
2. In AlexanderLove v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, the Federal Court considered an arrest in which a law-enforcement officer entered private property to carry out an arrest without first securing an Arrest Warrant.
3. The Federal Court upheld claims arising from that conduct.
4. The Court found that the officer's entry onto private property and subsequent arrest violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search or seizure and deprivation of liberty contrary to fundamental justice.
5. The Court further found that the officer's failure to secure an Arrest Warrant violated the Judicial Standards Act.
6. The Court held the Commonwealth responsible for the conduct of its law-enforcement agent.
7. The material circumstances alleged in the present action are substantially similar: the Plaintiff alleges that a DHS officer entered his private property for the purpose of locating and arresting him without an Arrest Warrant authorizing that entry.
8. The Plaintiff therefore relies upon the legal principles recognized in AlexanderLove in support of his claims.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Declare that RaiTheGuy07's entry onto Plot C122 without an Arrest Warrant was unlawful;
2. Declare that DHS, through RaiTheGuy07, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure;
3. Declare that the resulting arrest violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice;
4. Award compensatory damages in an amount the Court determines appropriate for the unlawful entry and resulting arrest;
5. Award nominal damages where appropriate for the violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights;
6. Award punitive damages if the Court determines that the Defendant's conduct satisfies the applicable legal standard for such damages;
7. Order DHS to investigate the circumstances surrounding the warrantless entry and arrest and take any corrective action the Court considers appropriate;
8. Award any court costs or other recoverable expenses permitted by law; and
9. Grant such other lawful and equitable relief as the Court determines just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE AND PRESENT BASIS FOR FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

P-001 — Screenshots showing Plot C122 and the “DO NOT ENTER” signs restricting entry onto the property.

P-001 supports the Plaintiff's factual allegations that C122 was marked against entry and that “DO NOT ENTER” signs were present.

Spoiler: P-001

1790969799765.png1790969811171.png1790969817230.png

P-002 — Screenshot concerning the Plaintiff's arrest and the charge associated with the arrest.

P-002 supports the Plaintiff's factual allegation that an arrest and/or charge occurred in connection with the incident described in this Complaint.

Spoiler: P-002

1790969783541.png

The Plaintiff does not presently possess a screenshot or recording depicting RaiTheGuy07 physically entering C122 through the iron block elevator.

The Plaintiff relies upon his own firsthand eyewitness testimony for the factual allegations that RaiTheGuy07 entered C122 through the iron block elevator, located the Plaintiff inside the property, and subsequently arrested him.

The Plaintiff likewise does not presently possess documentary evidence independently establishing whether an Arrest Warrant existed at the time of entry. The Plaintiff's present factual allegation is that no warrant was shown or identified to him and that he is unaware of any Arrest Warrant having been obtained.

VI. WITNESSES

1. SebasLaw

The Plaintiff possesses firsthand knowledge and will rely upon his testimony concerning:

a. his ownership and/or control of Plot C122;

b. the placement and existence of the “DO NOT ENTER” signs;

c. his presence inside C122 at the time of the incident;

d. RaiTheGuy07's entry into C122 through the iron block elevator;

e. the Plaintiff's lack of consent to RaiTheGuy07 entering the property;

f. RaiTheGuy07 locating the Plaintiff inside C122; and

g. the subsequent arrest.

1. RaiTheGuy07

RaiTheGuy07 possesses firsthand knowledge concerning:

a. his reason for going to C122;

b. the manner in which he entered C122;

c. his purpose for entering the property;

d. whether he observed or was aware of the restrictions on entry;

e. the circumstances under which he located and arrested the Plaintiff;

f. the legal authority upon which he relied when entering the property; and

g. whether an Arrest Warrant had been obtained before the entry and arrest.

The Plaintiff does not represent that RaiTheGuy07 has provided testimony supporting the Plaintiff's allegations at this stage. RaiTheGuy07 is identified as a witness because he personally participated in the events at issue and possesses firsthand knowledge concerning those events.

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

 

[Muggy21]

@SebasLaw Why is this in Federal Court?

I'm not the PO for this case, I'm performing a clerical duty.