Lawsuit: Adjourned SPECIAL in re: juniperfig [2026] FCR X1

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Muggy21

Citizen
Justice
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Homeland Security Department
Health Department
6th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Muggy21
Muggy21
Justice
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
1,581

Writ of Summons


@juniperfig is commanded to appear before the Federal Court in proceeding [2026] FCR 51 to answer to her conduct.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.




Court Order


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

@juniperfig on June 12th, 2026 at 5:19AM EDT, you said "I'll avenge you" in a public forum with the explicit intention of causing distress and fear. This is a clear violation of the Criminal Code Act Part V § (4) Threats. The Court is considering applying penalties for your blatant disregard of societal norms and your clearly criminal behaviour.


You shall have 48 hours to present a defense.




This is part of an event that will be in conjunction with the DPA, do not use this case as precedence nor an actual attempt to punish any citizen.
 
his is part of an event that will be in conjunction with t he DPA, do not use this case as precedence nor an actual attempt to punish any citizen. (is said bottom middle)
 
Thank you, Your Honour.

I will deliver my Amicus Brief in the form of a collage.

1781294896596.png
1781294918927.png
1781294934366.png
1781294984282.png
1781295009600.png
1781295032575.png
 
I, His Holiness Pope Benetukt XVII, Bishop of Redmont, Vicar of Tuk, Successor of the Prince of the Tukostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Tukostolic Church, Patriarch of Hamilton, Primate of Redmont, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Reveillian Province, Sovereign of the Vatukan City State, Servant of the Servants of Tuk, would like to file an amicus brief.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
I, His Holiness Pope Benetukt XVII, Bishop of Redmont, Vicar of Tuk, Successor of the Prince of the Tukostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Tukostolic Church, Patriarch of Hamilton, Primate of Redmont, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Reveillian Province, Sovereign of the Vatukan City State, Servant of the Servants of Tuk, would like to file an amicus brief.
Click to expand...

Your Pope-i-ness, granted.
 
I, former Federal Judge Multiman155, former and future President, and former Acting Attorney General, respectfully request permission to submit a brief as a friend of the court. My interest in this case is the interest of justice. I have no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case. The proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue: namely, the legal issue of a summary offense issued by a judge when a case is not ongoing.
 
Your dishonorable,

I wish to file an inimicus brief, as an enemy of the court.

My interest in this case is heavily biased. I may have a personal interest or stake in the outcome of this case.

My brief concerns the legal issue of a summary offense by a judge while there is no ongoing case, and how cool and actually beneficial it is.


Disrespectfully submitted,
Evil King of Alexandria
 
Franciscus said:
I, former Federal Judge Multiman155, former and future President, and former Acting Attorney General, respectfully request permission to submit a brief as a friend of the court. My interest in this case is the interest of justice. I have no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case. The proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue: namely, the legal issue of a summary offense issued by a judge when a case is not ongoing.
Click to expand...
asexualdinosaur said:
Your dishonorable,

I wish to file an inimicus brief, as an enemy of the court.

My interest in this case is heavily biased. I may have a personal interest or stake in the outcome of this case.

My brief concerns the legal issue of a summary offense by a judge while there is no ongoing case, and how cool and actually beneficial it is.


Disrespectfully submitted,
Evil King of Alexandria
Click to expand...
both granted
 
Your honor, I would  not like to file an amicus brief and ask that I not be compelled to do so.

Instead, I want to confirm:
Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.
Click to expand...
Who is the other party? It's not me, right? Is it everyone but me?
 
Muggy21 said:
both granted​
Click to expand...

Brief


I) The basis of the charge

i) The charge has basis has it is being invoked from the Criminal Code Act linked in I.ii and further defined by I.ii.! & I.ii.!!

ii) Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act

!) Part V § 1 - Disturbing the Peace ("Engages in disorderly behavior toward an individual or group that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.")

!!) Part V § 4 Threats ("verbally threatens another player with communication to cause fear or force action.")

II) Commonwealth Judiciary has a lot of leeway in punishments

i) Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 114

!) P-2, as well as Ko's complaint show the frmr. honourable UnseatedDuke1 issued a 'Solitary Confinement Order', during this period there was no in-game process, or legal mechanism in which to do so.

!!) Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 114

@) Here we see that frmr. honourable Judge SumoMC, upholds this decision and rules in favor of the defence

@@) After an appeal as to the reasonable limits, this decision was upheld by the SCR Appeal: Denied - [2024] FCR 114 - Appeal - Appeal ("After careful consideration, the Supreme Court has upheld the ruling on the original appeal.")

@@@) There was a second appeal attempt to the SCR once again, Appeal: Denied - [2024] FCR 114 - Appeal ("The Judiciary, through various legislation, is charged with the duty of interpreting the law and incarcerating as appropriate. The Supreme Court is satisfied that additional controls were necessary and reasonable limits of the appellant's rights in their incarceration. This was due to their extreme criminal behaviour that posed a risk to the community and other inmates.")

ii) Though the actions of duke were not an explicit charging of a summary offense without an associated 'ongoing case', this still very much represents a judicial officers ability to exercise wide discretion when it comes to punishments.

III) I'm being paid for this brief

i) I mentioned that I had a vested interest in providing this brief.

ii) I will make upwards of $10,000+ if there is a successful charge.

IV) I feel threatened and distressed.

i) Juniperfig's comments threatened and distressed me when I read them.

!) I nearly fainted when I had to read them in the court filing as well.

@) Causing me to faint in relation to an event is grounds for a Public Nuisance charge

$) Public Nuisance ("willfully disrupts or trolls DPA-sanctioned or government events, or political rallies")

V) For Vendetta

VI) Please pretty please PLEASE, charge juniperfig with this crime. They are a criminal.

i) Also as stated within III.ii, I will make $10,000+

VII) Made you look.

​
 
I, Attorney General Prosecutor Investigator Oakridge Economist CEO Editor-in-Chief the party Party Board Member and Party Member Proud Holder of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Butter Dog Shares Dirty Government Snitch Employer of
Nacholebraa
Mask3D_WOLF
Soundi83
DETEVTIVHOLMES
dearev
AmityBlamity
ameslap
TrueDarklander
Savannah Price
PurpleBG
Patototongo1
Novakerbal
Scassany
roy404
.Dps1234_2541
SimplifiedMax
TheSnowGuardian
Stanley582
Incarnation__
nullapoene
poy1

ask to once again hold hands and reunite with my once-employer the Honourable Judge Muggy21 as we become amīcī and he allows me to submit a brief on the applicability of the CCA and the relevance of pancakes in the present case (they are not relevant).
 
Last edited:

Motion

1781394875225.png


IN THE MOST DISHONORABLE UNITARY COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BLUEVILLE​
- Motion to Intervene -​
We are all really concerned about junipers recent behavior and she requires an intervention.

 
MJL said:
Your honor, I would  not like to file an amicus brief and ask that I not be compelled to do so.

Instead, I want to confirm:

Who is the other party? It's not me, right? Is it everyone but me?
Click to expand...
I think its like just you and only you and stuff i dont think its anyone else actually is it someone else am i a party uhhh guys what the hell do i do uhh do you think if i bribe dino they'll give me a PD?
 
Superwoops said:
I, Attorney General Prosecutor Investigator Oakridge Economist CEO Editor-in-Chief the party Party Board Member and Party Member Proud Holder of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Butter Dog Shares Dirty Government Snitch Employer of
Nacholebraa
Mask3D_WOLF
Soundi83
DETEVTIVHOLMES
dearev
AmityBlamity
ameslap
TrueDarklander
Savannah Price
PurpleBG
Patototongo1
Novakerbal
Scassany
roy404
.Dps1234_2541
SimplifiedMax
TheSnowGuardian
Stanley582
Incarnation__
nullapoene
poy1

ask to once again hold hands and reunite with my once-employer the Honourable Judge Muggy21 as we become amīcī and he allows me to submit a brief on the applicability of the CCA and the relevance of pancakes in the present case (they are not relevant).
Click to expand...

Granted. If you dont mention pancakes you will join the accused.
 
Muggy21 said:
Granted. If you dont mention pancakes you will join the accused.
Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Let the Court know that the burden to prove the CCA violation "Threats" is not met, as intent to cause fear or force action hasn't been proven.
Moreover, juniperfig is a fig. Figs are known for being innocent fruits, therefore it's impossible she committed this crime.

Long live waffles,
AG Superwoops

 
Your Honour, as a qualified barrister and experienced DHS employee, I request permission to file a Amicus Curiae brief to the court. I hold interest in such a filing this as I simply hope to fine the fig when convicted. Naturally, I attest I have no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case. Those two statement are definitely not contradictory, I am just a poor little law enforcement officer who is wholly unbiased. My brief is so legal that I seek to provide evidence of this figs violent inclinations, no would could say that's not a legal argument hey...
 
Franciscus said:
I, former Federal Judge Multiman155, former and future President, and former Acting Attorney General, respectfully request permission to submit a brief as a friend of the court. My interest in this case is the interest of justice. I have no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case. The proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue: namely, the legal issue of a summary offense issued by a judge when a case is not ongoing.
Click to expand...
Muggy21 said:
both granted
Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honor:

In this case, Your Honor has initiated a summary proceeding against Defendant by issuing an Order to Show cause. No case was ongoing prior to the order to show cause, and no other indictments have been laid.

The Criminal Code Act states that "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings; when imposing such punishments, a Judicial Officer must offer their reasoning for issuing the punishment in an order or verdict. Such punishment may not be upheld on appeal except for reasons listed in such order or verdict" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)). In all other cases regarding summary offenses, "Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules" (id., Section 6(2)(b)).

What is a government department? The Constitution gives a few clues. "Government Departments, Offices and their employees fall under the executive arm of Government" (Const. 30), are lead by a Secretary (see: Const. 29), and ultimately derive their authority from delegated executive power (see: Const. 23). The Federal Court, which is a part of the Judicial arm of the government (see: Const. 14), is not a department.

Thus, to convict of the summary offense alleged here, the Federal Court must find that the alleged offense was committed during proceedings. The Amicus offers no opinion on how this might be done, but does note the statutory requirement.

 
Goldendude15 said:
Your Honour, as a qualified barrister and experienced DHS employee, I request permission to file a Amicus Curiae brief to the court. I hold interest in such a filing this as I simply hope to fine the fig when convicted. Naturally, I attest I have no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case. Those two statement are definitely not contradictory, I am just a poor little law enforcement officer who is wholly unbiased. My brief is so legal that I seek to provide evidence of this figs violent inclinations, no would could say that's not a legal argument hey...
Click to expand...

Please present your biased opinion.
 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honor:

In this case, Your Honor has initiated a summary proceeding against Defendant by issuing an Order to Show cause. No case was ongoing prior to the order to show cause, and no other indictments have been laid.

The Criminal Code Act states that "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings; when imposing such punishments, a Judicial Officer must offer their reasoning for issuing the punishment in an order or verdict. Such punishment may not be upheld on appeal except for reasons listed in such order or verdict" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)). In all other cases regarding summary offenses, "Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules" (id., Section 6(2)(b)).

What is a government department? The Constitution gives a few clues. "Government Departments, Offices and their employees fall under the executive arm of Government" (Const. 30), are lead by a Secretary (see: Const. 29), and ultimately derive their authority from delegated executive power (see: Const. 23). The Federal Court, which is a part of the Judicial arm of the government (see: Const. 14), is not a department.

Thus, to convict of the summary offense alleged here, the Federal Court must find that the alleged offense was committed during proceedings. The Amicus offers no opinion on how this might be done, but does note the statutory requirement.

Click to expand...

Mr. Allay, you've just proven the legality of these proceedings. As long as this Court doesn't "impose punishments", then the proceeding requirement is moot.

That works in the public's general welfare. If juniperfig is liable, then the Court shall enlist a government department to assist!

As always counselor, your legal analysis has been useful!
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour,

As shown by the attached image, this fig is perniciously violent, unafraid and unhesitant to yield a deadly firearm at spawn where all the poor and unaware new players gather. What is meant to be a safe space for the community is transformed into a place of fear and fright by this juniperfig. <umm imagine a purely delightful and persuasive constitution related legal argument here about why the fig should be convicted...> I was the innocent and law abiding citizen who had the gun pointed at me as pictured - let me take my sweet revenge and find this fig guilty, thereby allowing me to execute the rightful enforcement of the law by fining this fig for the crimes she has so insidiously committed (allegedly). Therefore, the fig should be convicted for it will allow justice to be served. I hope my unbiased and wholly persuasive brief has been of great usefulness to this court. Also, I'm sure this court will construe this attached image as a legal argument, who would think otherwise?

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-03-09 084804.png
    Screenshot 2025-03-09 084804.png
    613.1 KB · Views: 17
I, representative, former representative, former attorney general of Mironia, former prophet of Pluralism, owner of CNNnews, lover of waffles, and human, Stanley582, wish to file a brief amicus curiae
 
Your honor, as you have liked my message, I will assume that you have consented to the amicus brief. It will be posted shortly
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honor,
According to mens rea, defendant Juniperfig does not have the habeas corpus that would prove her indemnity. Under the pro bono subpoena bucket, Ms. Fig was a force majeure at the time of commission of the offense, and so could not have been an affidavit. De novo pecuniary losses are, in addition, en banc, further proving Ms. Fig’s innocence. Nolo contendere is a pro se per curiam order. This, in combination with voir dire, creates an atmosphere requiring a sua sponte writ of cert. I hope the court will take into account the feduciary hearsay and perjured injunction of the prima facie restitution. I rest my case.

Since I know all these legal words, I’m smart and you have to believe me.

Signed,
Stanley582
1st attorney general of Mironia, non-practicing attorney

 
Last edited:

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF EXECUTION

On summons to this Court against juniperfig and resulting from the proceedings herein, this Court causes the following writ to be duly entered.

WHEREAS, this Court, having weighed the evidence and reviewed the exhibits (a regrettable number of which were genuinely endearing and clearly damning), did find the Defendant destestable.


WHEREAS, this Court finding that juniperfig MAY have threatened society at-large, does permit the Department of Public Affairs to independently determine if juniperfig shall be punished.

WHEREAS, this Court is too lazy to make a DPA ticket, the Court will assume that Department has independently authorized such action.


THEREFORE, on advice and direction of the Department of Public Affairs' recommendation that juniperfig be punished at a time convenient to that department and advantageous for the public,


Juniperfig, the former President-"dictator" civil-rights activist and #1 End-supporter, shall be executed on June 20th, 2026 at 8pm EDT.

So advised,
Judge Mug

 
Muggy21 said:

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF EXECUTION

On summons to this Court against juniperfig and resulting from the proceedings herein, this Court causes the following writ to be duly entered.

WHEREAS, this Court, having weighed the evidence and reviewed the exhibits (a regrettable number of which were genuinely endearing and clearly damning), did find the Defendant destestable.


WHEREAS, this Court finding that juniperfig MAY have threatened society at-large, does permit the Department of Public Affairs to independently determine if juniperfig shall be punished.

WHEREAS, this Court is too lazy to make a DPA ticket, the Court will assume that Department has independently authorized such action.


THEREFORE, on advice and direction of the Department of Public Affairs' recommendation that juniperfig be punished at a time convenient to that department and advantageous for the public,


Juniperfig, the former President-"dictator" civil-rights activist and #1 End-supporter, shall be executed on June 20th, 2026 at 8pm EDT.

So advised,
Judge Mug

Click to expand...
Your Honour, wouldn't this be a writ of mandamus directed towards the DPA?
 
Muggy21 said:

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF EXECUTION

On summons to this Court against juniperfig and resulting from the proceedings herein, this Court causes the following writ to be duly entered.

WHEREAS, this Court, having weighed the evidence and reviewed the exhibits (a regrettable number of which were genuinely endearing and clearly damning), did find the Defendant destestable.


WHEREAS, this Court finding that juniperfig MAY have threatened society at-large, does permit the Department of Public Affairs to independently determine if juniperfig shall be punished.

WHEREAS, this Court is too lazy to make a DPA ticket, the Court will assume that Department has independently authorized such action.


THEREFORE, on advice and direction of the Department of Public Affairs' recommendation that juniperfig be punished at a time convenient to that department and advantageous for the public,


Juniperfig, the former President-"dictator" civil-rights activist and #1 End-supporter, shall be executed on June 20th, 2026 at 8pm EDT.

So advised,
Judge Mug

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honor,
This is really uncool, pls reconsider?

If you rule against juniperfig, pancakes are officially worse than waffles.

Signed,
Stanley582
1st attorney general of Mironia, non-practicing attorney

 
Muggy21 said:

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF EXECUTION

On summons to this Court against juniperfig and resulting from the proceedings herein, this Court causes the following writ to be duly entered.

WHEREAS, this Court, having weighed the evidence and reviewed the exhibits (a regrettable number of which were genuinely endearing and clearly damning), did find the Defendant destestable.


WHEREAS, this Court finding that juniperfig MAY have threatened society at-large, does permit the Department of Public Affairs to independently determine if juniperfig shall be punished.

WHEREAS, this Court is too lazy to make a DPA ticket, the Court will assume that Department has independently authorized such action.


THEREFORE, on advice and direction of the Department of Public Affairs' recommendation that juniperfig be punished at a time convenient to that department and advantageous for the public,


Juniperfig, the former President-"dictator" civil-rights activist and #1 End-supporter, shall be executed on June 20th, 2026 at 8pm EDT.

So advised,
Judge Mug

Click to expand...

Will this execution be a potluck event? Do I need to bring a dish?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top