Lawsuit: Pending sillyjustin v. Commonwealth of Redmont

S

sillyjustin

Citizen
Supporter
sillyjustin
sillyjustin
Solicitor
Joined
Sep 21, 2026
Messages
2

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​


CIVIL ACTION​



sillyjustin

Plaintiff


v.


The Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Homeland Security)

Defendant


COMPLAINT​


The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


On 6 October 2026 I was injured and went to the hospital for a doctor. The person who answered was shown by the server as a "Police Officer", not a Doctor, and was the officer who had handcuffed and charged me less than an hour earlier. I did not accept that officer as my doctor and asked for one I could identify. When a Medical Specialist arrived I accepted treatment immediately and was cured. The next day the Department of Homeland Security took $600.00 from my balance for "Abuse of Public Resources", the statutory maximum, without stating any reason. Asking for a doctor while injured is not a frivolous use of a government service. I ask the Court to reverse the fine and return the money.
Click to expand...


I. PARTIES​


  1. sillyjustin (Plaintiff, self-represented)
  2. The Commonwealth of Redmont, acting through the Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)


II. FACTS​


All times are server time (UTC).


  1. Prior practice. On prior hospital visits the Plaintiff was treated by staff displaying a Doctor title. On 25 September 2026 at approximately 18:09 the Plaintiff told "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" he was sick and was answered "sure i can treat u" (P-001). On 28 September 2026 at 08:38-08:39 "Doctor Maoshi Wingdings" treated the Plaintiff for an ear infection (P-003, P-004).
  2. The player who treated the Plaintiff as "Doctor Mofky Da Vinci" on 25 September also handcuffed and charged him that day as "Officer m0fky" (P-002). That player holds police powers and displayed the title "Doctor".
  3. The arrest. On 6 October 2026 at 18:50, the Plaintiff was handcuffed and charged by Officer StarKlower ("Cuffed by StarKlower"; "You are being charged with SpairBG Murder | SpairBG Murder ... - Officer StarKlower") (P-005).
  4. The hospital. At 19:43:50 the Plaintiff was injured ("Ouch! You have been hurt by a rusty object.", twice) (P-006). At 19:43:57 he paged a doctor using the Department of Health monitor, and at 19:44:12 stated in chat "i need a DOCTOR".
  5. At 19:45:01 a player responded ("hii pls follow me") displaying, in chat, "Police Officer SB NoLastName" and, in-world, the nametag "PO | StarKlower" (P-007). No Doctor title was displayed.
  6. The Plaintiff asked for a doctor: "i want a real doctor" (19:48:32) (P-008). The responder wrote "i am a real doctor"; the Plaintiff replied "says police officer" (19:48:39-47), meaning that the responder's displayed title said "Police Officer" (P-009).
  7. The Plaintiff continued to page the monitor while no responder displaying a Doctor title was present.
  8. At 19:58:37 the Plaintiff stated "I am not refusing service from a doctor" and "ur not a doctor it says police" (P-010).
  9. At 19:59:07 the responder told the Plaintiff "bro just /about me and click on jobs". The Plaintiff ran /about me, and the server returned "Please enter a valid username!" (19:59:17) (P-011). The responder then wrote "/about starklower" (19:59:18). At 19:59:27 the Plaintiff reported "i ran /about me and it says invalid username" (P-012).
  10. At 19:59:51-57 the Plaintiff asked "who is StarKlower?" and said "ur name is sb nolastname"; the responder replied "i am" (P-013). The responder was therefore Officer StarKlower, who had arrested the Plaintiff at 18:50.
  11. The Plaintiff then asked in global chat for any doctor online ("any docotors online", "so none online?") and said "ok will wait" (20:00:34-50) (P-014, P-014a).
  12. At 20:01:02 a Medical Specialist (savxzFangnhv) joined the server. At 20:01:57 the Plaintiff paged the monitor; it was his last page. The Medical Specialist was at the hospital by 20:02 (P-015, P-015a) and responded to the Plaintiff at 20:02:30 (P-016).
  13. The Medical Specialist was displayed as "MS | savxzFangnhv" and, in chat, "Medical Specialist Doge Soap McKakashi" (P-015). The Plaintiff asked in global chat "are you a doctor?", was told "stay here, brb", and replied "Thank you doc" (P-016).
  14. At 20:03:00 the Plaintiff was "cured of blockjaw" by the Medical Specialist and thanked them ("plus ur a specialist", "youre really good at your job") (P-017).
  15. At no point did the Plaintiff refuse treatment from anyone displaying a Doctor or Medical Specialist title.
  16. The fine. At 20:14:26 on 6 October 2026, DHS officer Lance Iris-Holmes messaged the Plaintiff: "why were you refusing service at the hospital?" At 20:16:02 the Plaintiff replied: "I'm invoking my right under s 33(5) [sic: s 35(5)] of the Constitution not to produce self-incriminating evidence, and my right to remain silent under the Miranda Warning Act. I won't be answering questions." The message did not state that any violation was alleged, which provision was relied on, or that a penalty was being considered.
  17. On 7 October 2026 at 15:31, the Defendant debited $600.00 from the Plaintiff's balance: "TREASURY » You have been fined $600.00 for: Outstanding Fine 1x Abuse of Public Resources" (transaction #9430080) (P-018, P-019).
  18. The debit message named the violation but stated no conduct, date or reason. No message to the Plaintiff before the debit stated that a penalty would be imposed. The Plaintiff asked in chat at the time why he had been fined and stated that no information had been given (P-021, P-021a).
  19. In the Plaintiff's DHS ticket that day, SB NoLastName, the responder described above, handled the ticket and stated that the fine was "due to spamming the hospital monitor" (P-020).
  20. $600.00 is the maximum penalty for the violation: 5 Civil Penalty Units at $120 each (Redmont Civil Code Act Part XIII §6; Part II §8(3)).
  21. On 7 October 2026 at 18:11, the Plaintiff formally contested the fine in the same ticket, asking for it to be reversed and for review by an officer other than the one involved. At 18:16 DHS officer Jayessar Kiwi was appointed to review it. At 18:36 the officer upheld the fine: "Yes, I think Abuse of Public Resources is the appropriate civil offence. ... My reasoning is as follows: You called a doctor, one attended. You refused treatment from that doctor, but nonetheless chose to make further repeated, unnecessary calls for a doctor." DHS then requested closure of the ticket with the reason "Charges and fines stand" (P-022).


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​


This is a civil contest of an administrative penalty. Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §7(5) provides that an Administrative Violation, enforced by immediate penalty without trial, "can be contested before a judicial officer after enforcement." The Plaintiff has contested it with DHS first (Fact 21). The Plaintiff does not seek any change to a criminal record; he seeks only reversal of the penalty and return of the money taken.


1. Wrongful Seizure of Property - Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI §4

  • A government officer commits this violation by seizing property without lawful authority. An account balance is property. The violation does not occur where the seizure was made under a valid court order or a lawful statutory power.
  • The only power relied on is Part XIII §6 (Abuse of Public Resources), which is committed only where a person "frivolously uses a government sign service." The power exists only where that element is met.
  • It was not met. The Plaintiff was genuinely injured (Fact 4) and paged for a doctor. The responder who attended was displayed by the server as "Police Officer" and "PO", not as a doctor (Fact 5), and was the officer who had handcuffed and charged him less than an hour earlier (Facts 3, 10). The Plaintiff did not accept that officer as his doctor and asked for a doctor he could identify (Facts 6, 8, 11). When he ran the command the officer gave him, the server returned an error (Fact 9). His pages ended when a responder displaying a medical title attended, and he accepted treatment from that responder at once (Facts 12-14).
  • Declining care from a particular person is not a frivolous use of the doctor sign. The sign exists to summon a doctor, and that is what the Plaintiff used it for: a patient may ask for a doctor he can identify rather than accept treatment from the police officer who arrested him that evening. On prior visits the Plaintiff accepted treatment at once from staff displaying a Doctor title, including a player who also holds police powers (Facts 1-2).
  • DHS's stated reasoning on review (Fact 21) does not survive the record. "One attended": the only responder before the Medical Specialist was displayed by the server as "Police Officer" and "PO", with no Doctor title, and was the officer who had arrested the Plaintiff (Facts 3, 5, 10). "You refused treatment from that doctor": the Plaintiff declined care from a police officer who had arrested him that evening; he did not refuse treatment from anyone displaying a medical title (Fact 15), and accepted it immediately from the first such responder (Facts 13-14). "Unnecessary calls": the calls sought a doctor the Plaintiff could identify, for a real condition that was then cured, and they stopped as soon as such a doctor attended (Facts 12-14).
  • Part II §9(5) provides: "Administrative Violations do not require proof of harm and may only be enforced directly by a government entity. The burden of proof shall be by clear and convincing evidence." Because only a government entity may enforce an administrative violation, that burden falls on the enforcing party. The Commonwealth has itself described its position this way: "The Commonwealth is the governmental enforcing party in this action. (see Part II, § 9(5) ...)" (Commonwealth of Redmont v. kisskissy [2026] FCR 84, Post #1). Part II §4(1) provides that the Code prevails over any conflicting Act. Pages by an injured patient seeking a doctor other than the officer who had just arrested him do not prove frivolousness to that standard.
  • Where a DHS penalty is applied to conduct that does not meet the elements of the provision relied on, this Court has ordered the money returned: AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 51, Post #41 ("the DHS unfairly applied the charge ... The DHS is hereby instructed to ... unfine AsexualDinosaur").
  • The seizure was therefore without lawful authority. The remedy is restitution of $600.00.


2. In the alternative: Denial of Due Process - Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI §6

  • This violation is committed by a government body that makes a decision affecting the plaintiff's rights or interests and fails to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, or fails to follow procedures required by law. It does not occur where there is no statutory requirement to provide notice or an opportunity to be heard (§6(d)).
  • The Plaintiff accepts that the scheme permits immediate enforcement followed by a contest "before a judicial officer after enforcement" (Part II §7(5)). That right to contest presupposes that the person fined is told what is alleged against him. Here the debit named the violation but no conduct, date or reason, and no message before the debit identified a violation or said a penalty was being considered (Facts 16-18). The first explanation came, after the Plaintiff opened a ticket, from the officer whose own response was the subject of the allegation (Fact 19).
  • If the Court finds that §6(d) applies, the Plaintiff relies on Claim 1, which by itself supports the relief sought.


3. In the further alternative: reduction of the penalty - Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §5

  • If the Court finds that a violation occurred, Part II §5(1) leaves it to the judicial officer to "impose any part or the whole of the prescribed remedy or penalty", and §5(3) provides that "A judicial officer may impose a lesser remedy or penalty than the maximum provided for the violation". Part XIII §6 sets no minimum.
  • In exercising that discretion the Court must consider, among other things, "(b) the intent and conduct of the violator" and "(c) any aggravating or mitigating circumstances" (§5(2)). The circumstances are mitigating: the Plaintiff was genuinely injured (Fact 4); the responder was displayed as a police officer and was the officer who had arrested him that evening (Facts 3, 5, 10); the command he was given to check returned an error (Fact 9); and his pages ended when a doctor he could identify attended, whose treatment he accepted at once (Facts 12-14).
  • The Defendant imposed the maximum without stating any reason for choosing it (Facts 18, 20). The Plaintiff asks that any penalty be reduced and the difference returned.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​


The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

  1. Reversal of the administrative penalty for Abuse of Public Resources (transaction #9430080), on this contest under Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §7(5) (and Part XI §6).
  2. Restitution of $600.00 under Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI §4.
  3. In the alternative, if the Court finds that a violation occurred, a reduced penalty under Part II §5(3) and return of the difference.
  4. Legal fees under Redmont Civil Code Act Part III §7(2)(a), (d) and (h): 30% of the case value, subject to the $3,000.00 District Court minimum, the Plaintiff appearing pro se.


V. EVIDENCE​


P-001 Prior treatment - Doctor Mofky Da Vinci (09-25).png

P-002 Same person arrests as Officer m0fky (09-25).png

P-003 Prior treatment - Doctor Maoshi Wingdings arrives (09-28).png

P-004 Prior treatment - ear infection treated (09-28).png

P-005 Arrest - cuffed and charged by StarKlower.png

P-006 Injury - hurt by rusty object (cropped).png

P-007 SB arrives - Police Officer, PO StarKlower nametag.png

P-008 I want a real doctor.png

P-009 I am a real doctor - says police officer.png

P-010 Not refusing service from a doctor.png

P-011 About lookup - Please enter a valid username.png

P-012 I ran about me and it says invalid username.png

P-013 SB confirms StarKlower identity.png

P-014 Will wait for a doctor - u r police.png

P-014a So none online.png

P-015 Medical Specialist arrives.png

P-015a Doctor paged - Medical Specialist present.png

P-016 Are you a doctor - Medical Specialist responds.png

P-017 Cured of blockjaw by Medical Specialist.png

P-018 Fine notice 600 (cropped).png

P-019 Transaction record - 600 fine (cropped).png

P-020 DHS ticket - SB handles ticket (cropped).png

P-021 Why did i just get fined for abuse of public resources.png

P-021a No info even given.png

P-022 DHS review - contest refused, charges and fines stand.png


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 7th day of October, 2026.

 

Attachments

  • P-020 DHS ticket - SB handles ticket (cropped).png
    P-020 DHS ticket - SB handles ticket (cropped).png
    79.1 KB · Views: 8
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top