Lawsuit: Pending Social Democrat Party and Stanley582 v. Commonwealth Of Redmont [2026] FCR 29

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Social Democrat Party and Stanley582
Plaintiffs

v.

Commonwealth Of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 28th of March 2026, Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23 was filed in the District Court of Redmont. The Commonwealth of Redmont brought this case on with the focus point of:

“This campaign advertisement made several claims, including the desire to abolish a sales tax, make the income tax progressive, provide free public healthcare, and exempting residential plots and town plots from the Auction Levy. Notably, each of these desires are already present in legislation, making it impossible for such promises to be fulfilled by the Defendants political party.”

On the 19th of March 2026, just two days after Stanley582’s Advertisement, Budgiebud posted a political advertisement with the following contents:

“Economic Prosperity: Slash unnecessary taxes and eliminate the waste.
Small Government: Defend town autonomy and stop central government overreach. You know how to run your life better than a politician does.
Law & Order: Full support and robust funding for the Police and Armed Forces. Security is the foundation of freedom.
Property Rights: Protect R-Plots and business owners from aggressive government seizure and high levies.
Active Community: Join a network of like-minded patriots who are passionate about the freedom cause.
Town Rights: Advocate maximum local control for Town Councils and the protection of local interests.“

This Statement includes some of the same features as Stanley582’s advertisement, which states “Exempt R-Plots … from the auction levy.” Similarly, Budgiebud posted the following in an advertisement: “Protect R-Plots … from aggressive government seizure and high levies” Both statements concern the imposition of levies on residential plots and communicate to voters that such levies will be reduced, removed, or prevented. There is no rational distinction between these two advertisements, particularly given the reasoning relied upon by the Commonwealth in that case. But the main difference between them is that one of them has been prosecuted, and one of them has been allowed to post freely.

The constitution clearly states in section V (35) (13):

“Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.“

This case demonstrates that the commonwealth has treated two citizens differently based on political statements that they have made, which is a clear breach of this clause of the Constitution and constitutes a breach of Section V (35) (13) of the Constitution by the Commonwealth and the Department of Justice.

I. PARTIES
1. Social Democrat Party - Plaintiff
2. Stanley583 - Plaintiff
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont - Defendant
4. Budgiebud - Non-prosecuted Misleading Advertising
5. NovaKerbal - DOJ Prosecutor

II. FACTS
1. On the 17th of March 2026, Stanley582 posted an advertisement stating, “Exempt R-Plots … from the auction levy.” (P-01)
2. On the 19th of March 2026, Budgiebud posted an advertisement stating, “Protect R-Plots … from aggressive government seizure and high levies” (P-02)
3. On the 28th of March 2026, the Commonwealth of Redmont filed Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23. (P-03)
4. Section V (35) (13) of the Constitution states, “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.“ (P-04)
5. Stanly582 is the Press Secretary for the Social Democrat Party (P-05)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By initiating the prosecution of Stanly582 in the case Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23 while failing to take action against other individuals, such as Budgiebud, engaging in similar conduct, has acted in a manner that is inconsistent and violates section V (35) (13) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

There exists no rational basis for distinguishing between these two advertisements that have been shown for enforcement. As such, the defendant's actions show unequal treatment of two citizens under the law regarding political beliefs.

2. The Defendant chose to use its power to prosecute individuals selectively by choosing to only enforce their interpretation of the law against the Stanly582, while failing to enforce it on others, such as Budgiebud, engaging in comparable conduct.

Such selectiveness in choosing who they will enforce the law upon constitutes an abuse of governmental authority and demonstrates a disregard for fairness and consistency that underpin the rule of law. This constitutes further amounts of breach of the Defendant's duty to apply the law impartially.

3. By selectively prosecuting the SDP’s Press Secretary for campaign contents that are ignored when spoken by others, the Commonwealth is effectively penalising the SDP. This directly affects the Party’s constitutional right to political expression. If the Executive branch can selectively silence a party's officers through targeted litigation, the Party itself is hindered in its primary functions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $7,500 In Nominal Damages
2. $80,000 In Punitive Damages
3. $20,000 paid to Stanly583 for emotional damages.
3. 30% off the value of the case or $6,000 which ever is higher.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 15th day of April 2026

P-01

P-02

P-03

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/commonwealth-of-redmont-v-stanley582-2026-fcr-23.36182/

P-04

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/constitution.6/

P-05

 

[dodrio3]

 

[Muggy21]

The Court sees an issue on standing and will issue an Order to Show Cause for that purpose.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - Standing



The Court, having reviewed the Complaint, raises the following concerns regarding the Plaintiffs' standing to bring this action and orders the Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed.



To maintain a civil action before this Court, a plaintiff must demonstrate a cognizable legal interest in the relief sought. The Complaint raises concerns on two fronts.


First, as to the Social Democrat Party: the Complaint does not establish that the Party itself suffered a legally cognizable injury. The conduct alleged, namely the prosecution of Stanley582, was directed at an individual. A political party does not possess a generalized right to contest prosecutorial decisions made against its members, officers, or affiliates merely by virtue of that association. The Party must identify a distinct injury to itself, not to the individuals it represents.

Second, as to Stanley582: the relief sought is not the dismissal of the pending prosecution in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Stanley582 [2026] FCR 23, nor any remedy personal to Stanley582 in that proceeding. Instead, the Complaint asks this Court to find that the Commonwealth violated the equal protection guarantee of R. Const 35(13) by declining to prosecute a third party. The Plaintiffs are effectively seeking to compel or second-guess a prosecutorial decision regarding an individual, Budgiebud, who is not a party to this action and against whom no charge has been brought. This Court must consider whether a private plaintiff possesses standing to demand enforcement of criminal or regulatory law against another citizen.

With respect to the Constitution
The prosecution of laws is a core executive function vested in the Commonwealth under the Constitution. The decision of whether, when, and against whom to bring charges is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that flows directly from the Executive's constitutional mandate to enforce the law. As this Court recognized in Justice Compass, Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98, liability does not attach to the Commonwealth for good-faith exercises of constitutionally granted powers. Compelling the Executive to prosecute a specific individual, or penalizing it for declining to do so, would constitute an extraordinary intrusion by the Judiciary into the core functions of the Executive branch.

THEREFORE, the Federal Court orders Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE as to why this action does not effectively seek judicial supervision of prosecutorial discretion, and why such relief would not violate the separation of powers, and as to why this action should not be dismissed.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

@dodrio3 Please respond in 72 Hours.

 

[dodrio3]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

I. STANDING OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRAT PARTY
The Court expresses concern that the Social Democrat Party (SDP) has not suffered a cognizable injury. The Plaintiffs contend that the SDP has suffered an Injury. By selectively prosecuting the SDP’s Press Secretary for campaign contents that are ignored when spoken by others, the Commonwealth is effectively penalising the SDP. This directly affects the Party’s constitutional right to political expression. If the Executive branch can selectively silence a party's officers through targeted litigation, the Party itself is hindered in its primary functions.

II. STANDING OF STANLEY582
Regarding Stanley582, the injury is not merely the failure to prosecute a third party (Budgiebud), but the Discriminatory Enforcement against the Plaintiff.
1. Under Section V (35)(13) of the Constitution, a citizen has the right to "equal protection."
2. When two individuals commit the same act, but only the one who is advertising a specific party is prosecuted, the injury is the unconstitutional application of the law itself.
3. The relief sought is intended to remedy the harm caused by this discriminatory action.

III. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
The Court cites Justice Compass, Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] regarding good-faith exercises of power. However, the Plaintiffs allege that this was NOT a good-faith exercise, but a "Bad Faith" or "Discriminatory" exercise of power.

The Judiciary has a mandate to act as a check on the Executive when constitutional rights are violated. While the Court cannot usually compel a prosecution, it absolutely has the authority to:
1. Provide a remedy when an individual’s rights are violated by selective enforcement.
2. To declare a specific instance of prosecution unconstitutional if it is based on unfair discrimination of political belief.

If the Court holds that prosecutorial discretion is absolute even in the face of blatant discrimination, then Section V (35)(13) of the Constitution becomes unenforceable and redundant.

 

[Muggy21]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

I. STANDING OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRAT PARTY
The Court expresses concern that the Social Democrat Party (SDP) has not suffered a cognizable injury. The Plaintiffs contend that the SDP has suffered an Injury. By selectively prosecuting the SDP’s Press Secretary for campaign contents that are ignored when spoken by others, the Commonwealth is effectively penalising the SDP. This directly affects the Party’s constitutional right to political expression. If the Executive branch can selectively silence a party's officers through targeted litigation, the Party itself is hindered in its primary functions.

II. STANDING OF STANLEY582
Regarding Stanley582, the injury is not merely the failure to prosecute a third party (Budgiebud), but the Discriminatory Enforcement against the Plaintiff.
1. Under Section V (35)(13) of the Constitution, a citizen has the right to "equal protection."
2. When two individuals commit the same act, but only the one who is advertising a specific party is prosecuted, the injury is the unconstitutional application of the law itself.
3. The relief sought is intended to remedy the harm caused by this discriminatory action.

III. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
The Court cites Justice Compass, Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] regarding good-faith exercises of power. However, the Plaintiffs allege that this was NOT a good-faith exercise, but a "Bad Faith" or "Discriminatory" exercise of power.

The Judiciary has a mandate to act as a check on the Executive when constitutional rights are violated. While the Court cannot usually compel a prosecution, it absolutely has the authority to:
1. Provide a remedy when an individual’s rights are violated by selective enforcement.
2. To declare a specific instance of prosecution unconstitutional if it is based on unfair discrimination of political belief.

If the Court holds that prosecutorial discretion is absolute even in the face of blatant discrimination, then Section V (35)(13) of the Constitution becomes unenforceable and redundant.

Counselor, your argument for standing for SDP isn't present in the Complaint.

 

[dodrio3]

Counselor, your argument for standing for SDP isn't present in the Complaint.

Permission to ammed the Complait to include the argument.

 

[Muggy21]

Permission to ammed the Complait to include the argument.

Granted, I’ll rule on my OSC with that argument when amended

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

As a former Attorney General, former Judicial Officer, and expert on Political Communication and its intersection with the Constitution and justice, I request the opportunity to file an Amicus Curiae Brief regarding the Plaintiff's standing.

 

[dodrio3]

Granted, I’ll rule on my OSC with that argument when amended

The Filing has been amended.

 

[Muggy21]

Your honor,

As a former Attorney General, former Judicial Officer, and expert on Political Communication and its intersection with the Constitution and justice, I request the opportunity to file an Amicus Curiae Brief regarding the Plaintiff's standing.

Granted; within 24 hours please.

 

[Dartanboy]

Granted; within 24 hours please.

I apologize for the slight delay;

My brief will be finished this afternoon.

 

[Dartanboy]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

ON THE LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Part 1)
Drawing from historical precedent, the years-long stance that the Courts have taken to Constitutional Rights (see [2023] FCR 62) is that, as the Constitution says, "The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society" (see Constitution, Part V, Section 35).

I believe your honor fully understands this concept, based on your establishment of the "Stanley Standard" in [2026] FCR 23 (which, coincidentally is the very case mentioned in this case). In this decision, you stated that in order to violate the Right to Political Speech, there must be a 1) "lawful government interest", 2) "non-governmental victim", 3) "assertions of fact", 4) "objective falsity", and 5)"statutory neutrality."

Notably, you recognized the non-absoluteness of Constitutional Rights, while still recognizing the extremely high level of scrutiny potential rights violations must be examined under.

ON EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW (Right #13)
Here in the current case, the Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Constitutional Right to equality before and under the law (Right #13). Far be it from me to assert whether such an allegation is correct, I would however implore the court, to consider the following questions:
1. What does it mean to be "equal before and under the law?"
2. Has the Executive failed to treat the Plaintiffs "equal before and under the law?"

ON THE LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Part 2)
If the court determines that the Plaintiffs were not treated "equal before and under the law" (whatever that may mean), I find the question to become similar to that of the one that about the Stanley Standard: That is, was this violation of rights within the narrow scope of actions which is within the bounds of "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society?"

ON GOOD-FAITH EFFORTS
In [2025] FCR 98, the Court found Limited-Scope Immunity for a "good-faith attempt" to follow a court order, and found that because the Commonwealth was not able to recover funds from Naezaratheus, they were not liable for failing to pay Justice Compass their legal fees.

In this current case, however, I have not seen evidence that the Commonwealth made a "good-faith attempt" to ensure the Plaintiffs' rights were not violated when they chose to prosecute Stanley582. Furthermore, I do see evidence that the prosecution against Stanley582 may have failed to consider his Constitutional rights, and may have treated him unequal before and under the law.

ON JUDICIAL POWER AND ITS HISTORY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
I would implore the court to reconsider the statement made earlier: "Compelling the Executive to prosecute a specific individual, or penalizing it for declining to do so, would constitute an extraordinary intrusion by the Judiciary into the core functions of the Executive branch."

In the past, the courts have not stopped shy of requiring the Executive to fulfill their duties described by the Constitution, or even simply Statutory Law, and in some cases even their own policies. Some examples of this occurring include:

• [2021] DCR 17 - The (former) Department of Justice (modern-day DHS) was required to make an investigation
• [2021] SCR 15 - The (former) Department of Justice (modern-da DHS) was scolded for failing to perform a proper investigation
• [2023] FCR 96 - The (former) Department of Legal Affairs (modern-day DoJ) had a detention halted and was scolded for failing to uphold Constitutional Rights in an investigation
• [2025] FCR 76 - The Department of Construction and Transport was found liable for an invalid eviction, in part due to their failure to investigate ("The Department did not self-correct. It did not investigate. It did not acknowledge the error ...").

IN SUMMARY
While it is possible that no rights were violated, and it is possible that if a right was violated, it was justified, it is my opinion that there is sufficient evidence that there may have been a violation of the Plaintiffs' rights, and as such the case should be heard.

Thank you, your honor.