Lawsuit: Pending Social Democrat Party and Stanley582 v. Commonwealth Of Redmont

[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.

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 (day) day of (month) (year)

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.