Lawsuit: Dismissed sillyjustin v. The Commonwealth of Redmont

[sillyjustin]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL 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 31 October 2026 a DHS detective got into the crawlspace under my building at C611, which I rent out to a tenant as a residence. The only way in from outside is through iron trapdoors that I keep locked. They had no warrant and nobody gave them permission. When I asked how they got in they said "secret", then said it was the trapdoor, and then came over and showed me at the trapdoor, saying "using lock pick". There is a warrant made for exactly this, an Investigative Warrant lets a detective go onto private property to look for clues. They didn't get one, they picked my lock instead. I'm asking the Court to recognise that my right to be secure against unreasonable search was violated and to make DHS get warrants before doing this.

I. PARTIES​

1. sillyjustin (Plaintiff, self-represented)
   
   
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont, acting through the Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)
   
   
3. YuriDoubleA (shown in game as "Detective Arinobu Akinaga"), a DHS Detective acting in their official capacity (not a party of this case)
   
   

II. JURISDICTION​

1. This is a constitutional rights claim, so it belongs in the Federal Court. The Federal Court has original jurisdiction over "Questions of constitutionality" (Constitution §18(1)(a)).
   
2. The District Court dismisses these claims, see LuccaVG v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 129, Post #3.
   
3. It's filed in time. Civil actions have to be started "within four months of the date of the alleged violation" (Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §6(2)(a)), and this happened on 31 October 2026.
   

III. FACTS​

All times are server time (UTC) on 31 October 2026 unless stated otherwise.

1. The Plaintiff owns plot C611 in Reveille, a building of apartments and shop stalls rented to tenants (P-001). Under the building is an enclosed crawlspace (region "c611-crawlspace") which is rented out as a residence. At the time it was leased to, and lived in by, a tenant.
   
   
2. The way into the crawlspace from outside is two iron trapdoors behind the building. They are private trapdoors the Plaintiff locked with the server's lock system.
   
   
3. There are signs at entrances to C611 saying "WARNING ENTRY RULES PLOT C611" and "STOP READ THE BOOK FIRST before entry", next to a lectern with the plot's Entry Rules book (P-002a-c). The book says "1. This plot is private property. 2. Entry is only by the owner's consent." and "8. No person employed by the DOJ or DHS may enter this property without a warrant unless not acting in their offical capacity." (P-003a-c)
   
   
4. At about 10:48 the Plaintiff found out the Detective had been inside the crawlspace and messaged them "how did you get in there". The Detective answered "secret" (P-004a).
   
   
5. The Plaintiff told them he owned the building and there was no entrance. The Detective replied "there is, the trapdoor behind the building" (P-004b).
   
   
6. At 10:49 the Plaintiff checked both trapdoors and the server said for each one "This Iron Trapdoor is already locked." (P-004b). He told the Detective "it is locked".
   
   
7. At 10:50 he asked again "how did you get in there?". The Detective said "let me show you" and came to C611.
   
   
8. At 10:51, standing next to the locked trapdoors, the Detective said in local chat "here", then "using lock pick", then "using that" (P-005). Their nametag read "DET | YuriDoubleA" (P-006). They then threw the Plaintiff the lockpick (P-005), a server item described as "A special tool to open locks. When used it has a chance of opening a locked door!" (P-007). The Plaintiff gave it back and the Detective was still holding it at 10:52 (P-006).
   
   
9. At 10:52 the Plaintiff asked "to be clear you entered thru the trapdoor?" and the Detective answered "yeah" (P-006). They then said there had been bodies in the crawlspace and that "i cleaned it".
   
   
10. The Detective never showed or mentioned a warrant, and the Plaintiff doesn't know of any warrant for C611. They didn't claim anyone consented or that there was an emergency.
    
    
11. The Plaintiff did not consent to the entry.
    
    

IV. STANDING​

All three parts of Rule 2.1 are met.



1. Injury caused by a clear second party.


The Plaintiff owns C611 and the crawlspace under it (Fact 1; P-001) and locked it with his own locks (Facts 2, 6). The Detective picked those locks and went in and searched his property without a warrant (Facts 4-10). That took away his right "to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure" (Constitution Part V §35(15)).


The crawlspace being rented out doesn't make this the tenant's injury instead of his. The Private Property Protection Act §4 asks for "the consent of the owner/renter of the property", so the owner is one of the people whose consent counts, and the Plaintiff never gave it (Fact 11). The locks that got picked were also his, not the tenant's (Fact 2).


The second party is the Commonwealth, through a DHS Detective who was wearing the "DET" tag and on duty investigating bodies (Facts 8-9; P-005, P-006). The Commonwealth is liable for what its agent did: AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, Post #61.



2. The cause of injury was against the law.


There was no warrant, no consent and no emergency (Facts 10-11). A Detective needs an Investigative Warrant "to enter private property in order to search for clues relating to an active case" (Judicial Standards Act Part IV §5(1)), and they didn't have that or a Search Warrant (Part IV §2(1)). Officials can't go into property "secured by locked doors" or "enclosed residential structures" without consent or a warrant (Private Property Protection Act §4), and picking the lock is "lockpicking" as the law defines it (Criminal Terminology Act §4(4)). AlexanderLove already found this kind of warrantless entry violates the right against unreasonable search and the Judicial Standards Act. (See Part V for more on this.)



3. Remedy is available on a favourable decision.

• Nominal damages, which are "given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss", and "There shall be no diminution of award or defences to nominal damages" (Redmont Civil Code Act Part III §4). It doesn't matter that nothing was lost.
  
  
• An order like the one in AlexanderLove, where the Court "directs the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the incident thoroughly and take appropriate measures to address any necessary training and disciplinary actions."
  
  
• Legal fees under Part III §7.
  
  

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Violation of Constitutional Rights. Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI §1

A person commits this if they, "acting under colour of law, deprives another of rights secured by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont." The Constitution gives every citizen "the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure" (Part V §35(15)).


A warrant was needed. The Judicial Standards Act lets a court issue a warrant "to authorise the Commonwealth to take an action that would otherwise be unconstitutional" (Part IV §1(1)). The Investigative Warrant "authorises a Detective, accompanied or unaccompanied, to enter private property in order to search for clues relating to an active case" (Part IV §5(1)), and a Search Warrant "permits an authorised officer to enter private property" (Part IV §2(1)) (Judicial Standards Act). A Detective going onto private property to look for clues is exactly the thing that needs a warrant, and this Detective had none (Fact 10).



The crawlspace was locked. The Private Property Protection Act §4 only lets officials into nonresidential property that is "open to the general public", and says this "is signaled by the property not being secured by locked doors or otherwise barricaded." The crawlspace was locked (Facts 2, 6), so it wasn't open to the public and the Act didn't let the Detective in.


It's also a residence. The Act says "Government officials are prohibited from entering any enclosed residential structures without the consent of the owner/renter of the property, or a valid warrant issued by the Judiciary." The crawlspace is enclosed and was leased to and lived in by a tenant, in a building full of rented apartments (Fact 1). The Detective had no consent and no warrant (Facts 10-11).


There's no exception that helps DHS here. Everything the Act lets officials do is tied to property being open to the public: an official "may enter any nonresidential property that is open to the general public" and "the exterior land of any residential property that is open to the public", and the trespass exemption for banned officials only covers "property open to the public". None of that covers a locked space. For enclosed homes there's no exception for being on duty or for emergencies at all, it's "the consent of the owner/renter of the property, or a valid warrant issued by the Judiciary." Being on duty investigating bodies (Fact 9) isn't either of those.


They picked the lock. The Detective said they came in through the trapdoor (Facts 5, 9) and showed how: "using lock pick" (Fact 8). The trapdoors were locked (Fact 6). The Criminal Terminology Act §4(4) defines lockpicking as "any method of bypassing a locked barrier without authorisation, including ... using the lockpick item". Picking an owner's lock to get in, with no warrant, is an unreasonable search.


The posted rules aren't being used as a ban here, the lock is enough on its own. What they do show is that the Detective was told in writing that DHS needed a warrant (Fact 3). A book on a lectern at the entrance to a private plot is a lawful instruction about entry: jsrkiwi v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 93, Post #95, which was decided after the Private Property Protection Act passed. They picked the lock anyway.


The Commonwealth is liable. In AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, Post #61 an officer "used a glitch to enter the Plaintiff's private property". The Court held that was "a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Commonwealth's Charter of Rights & Freedoms, specifically: Article XV: Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure", that not getting a warrant "violated the Judicial Standards Act", and that "as an agent of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is held liable for these violations." A lockpick gets past a lock the same way a glitch gets past a wall. The Detective was acting officially, with the DET tag on and investigating bodies (Facts 8-9).


All of this comes from the Detective's own words (Facts 4-9).​

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff asks for:

1. $7,500.00 in nominal damages under Redmont Civil Code Act Part III §4.
   
   
   
2. An order, like in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, Post #61, directing DHS to investigate the incident and make sure its Detectives get an Investigative or Search Warrant before going into locked private property.
   
   
   
   
3. Legal fees under Redmont Civil Code Act Part III §7(2)(a), (c) and (h), 30% of the case value or the $6,000.00 Federal Court minimum, as the Plaintiff is representing himself.
   
   

VII. EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001: Plot C611 information

Spoiler: P-002a: Entry rules signs, entrance 1

Spoiler: P-002b: Entry rules signs, entrance 2

Spoiler: P-002c: Entry rules signs and lectern, entrance 3

Spoiler: P-003a: Entry rules book, page 1

Spoiler: P-003b: Entry rules book, page 2

Spoiler: P-003c: Entry rules book, page 3

Spoiler: P-004a: Private messages with the Detective

Spoiler: P-004b: Locked trapdoors

Spoiler: P-005: Detective at the trapdoors and also shows them throwing the lockpick at me

Spoiler: P-006: Detective confirms entry through the trapdoor and I also return the lockpick they gave me

Spoiler: P-007: Lockpick item given by the detective aforementioned to me

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.


Yours truthfully and respectfully filed,

sillyjustin (self-represented)

DATED: This 31st day of October, 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Has the prospective Plaintiff reached out the Department of Homeland Security about this matter?

 

[sillyjustin]

Has the prospective Plaintiff reached out the Department of Homeland Security about this matter?

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S QUESTION

Your Honour,

Contact with the Department would only be a courtesy, or something done at the Court's direction, and the reasons are set out below. The Plaintiff has not asked the Department of Homeland Security to resolve this matter. He did open one ticket with the Department before filing, to ask about warrants regarding the property.

1. Contact with the Department

1. On 31 October 2026, before filing, the Plaintiff opened DHS ticket #dhs-42603. He asked for two things: a history of warrants involving C611, and verification of the lectern at C611 (placement and edit history).
2. The handling officer replied that "No warrants have been executed against you." On the lectern, the officer said "This is not a government service provided by the DHS" and that "If you need it for a lawsuit, you can just do a motion to compel during discovery."
3. The ticket was then closed. The Plaintiff did not raise the entry itself as a complaint, and did not ask the Department for any remedy.

2. Why no further contact is needed

1. There is no fine or charge to contest. Where a case is about a penalty the Department imposed, the Court has ordered the plaintiff to contest it with DHS first "for the sake of judicial economy", since the Department can withdraw the penalty itself (RainbowHorsecake v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 138, Post #2). That follows from the Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §7(5): an Administrative Violation "can be contested before a judicial officer after enforcement." This case is different. It is about a warrantless entry into the Plaintiff's property. No penalty came from it, and there is nothing the Department can withdraw or undo.
2. The Department can't give the relief asked for. The Complaint claims under Part XI §1 for a constitutional violation and asks for nominal damages, an order, and fees. Only the Court can decide whether the Constitution was breached and award those.
3. No rule requires it. Nothing in the Court Rules makes contact with the defendant a condition of filing, and none of the three parts of standing under Rule 2.1 depends on it. Nominal damages are also not open to any defence such as a failure to mitigate: "There shall be no diminution of award or defences to nominal damages" (Part III §4(3)(a)).
4. The Department's position is already known. It has said that no warrants were executed against the Plaintiff, and that the evidence he asked for should be sought by a motion to compel in discovery. That is the route he intends to take.

He understands that the Court's time is valuable and that there are many ongoing cases. A warrantless entry into a locked residence on his property is still not something that should pass without proper due process. Protection from that entry is the Plaintiff's right, not a privilege, and it was his right that was violated.

Screenshots of the Discord ticket can be provided if the Court would like to see them.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to issue a summons to the Defendant.

Yours truthfully and respectfully filed,

sillyjustin

Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 1st day of November, 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S QUESTION

Your Honour,

Contact with the Department would only be a courtesy, or something done at the Court's direction, and the reasons are set out below. The Plaintiff has not asked the Department of Homeland Security to resolve this matter. He did open one ticket with the Department before filing, to ask about warrants regarding the property.

1. Contact with the Department

1. On 31 October 2026, before filing, the Plaintiff opened DHS ticket #dhs-42603. He asked for two things: a history of warrants involving C611, and verification of the lectern at C611 (placement and edit history).
2. The handling officer replied that "No warrants have been executed against you." On the lectern, the officer said "This is not a government service provided by the DHS" and that "If you need it for a lawsuit, you can just do a motion to compel during discovery."
3. The ticket was then closed. The Plaintiff did not raise the entry itself as a complaint, and did not ask the Department for any remedy.

2. Why no further contact is needed

1. There is no fine or charge to contest. Where a case is about a penalty the Department imposed, the Court has ordered the plaintiff to contest it with DHS first "for the sake of judicial economy", since the Department can withdraw the penalty itself (RainbowHorsecake v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 138, Post #2). That follows from the Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §7(5): an Administrative Violation "can be contested before a judicial officer after enforcement." This case is different. It is about a warrantless entry into the Plaintiff's property. No penalty came from it, and there is nothing the Department can withdraw or undo.
2. The Department can't give the relief asked for. The Complaint claims under Part XI §1 for a constitutional violation and asks for nominal damages, an order, and fees. Only the Court can decide whether the Constitution was breached and award those.
3. No rule requires it. Nothing in the Court Rules makes contact with the defendant a condition of filing, and none of the three parts of standing under Rule 2.1 depends on it. Nominal damages are also not open to any defence such as a failure to mitigate: "There shall be no diminution of award or defences to nominal damages" (Part III §4(3)(a)).
4. The Department's position is already known. It has said that no warrants were executed against the Plaintiff, and that the evidence he asked for should be sought by a motion to compel in discovery. That is the route he intends to take.

He understands that the Court's time is valuable and that there are many ongoing cases. A warrantless entry into a locked residence on his property is still not something that should pass without proper due process. Protection from that entry is the Plaintiff's right, not a privilege, and it was his right that was violated.

Screenshots of the Discord ticket can be provided if the Court would like to see them.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to issue a summons to the Defendant.

Yours truthfully and respectfully filed,

sillyjustin

Plaintiff (self-represented)

DATED: This 1st day of November, 2026.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER

The Court orders Plaintiff to contact the Department about resolving the underlying incident before the case is considered further. It is expected that petitioners attempt to resolve matters such as these administratively (see Justice Muggy's post in amah853 v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 178. In their own claims of relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Department to undertake an investigation, and yet the Plaintiff has given the Department no opportunity to do so of their own accord. Further, the courts notes that the use of generative AI to make Court filings is henceforth prohibited in these proceedings, which is within the Presiding Officer's authority in Rule 1.4.1. Any further filings the Court suspect to be generated substantially by AI shall be struck.

So Ordered.

 

[CreeperTD]

Upon further review, the Court has realized that Plaintiff does not have the appropriate qualifications to practice in the Federal Court. This case is administratively dismissed.