Lawsuit: Pending TheRealDarklander v. The Town of Oakridge et al. [2026] FCR 89

A

Areaous

Citizen
Desertstorm49
Desertstorm49
Barrister
Joined
May 25, 2026
Messages
24

Case Filing​



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


TrueDarklander, The Worker's Party of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Town of Oakridge, Smami
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. TrueDarklander
2. The Worker's Party of Redmont
3. Smami
4. The Department of Commerce and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. Smami was formerly in possession of the headquarters of the Worker's Party of Redmont
2. Smami was about to be evicted, before she transferred the properties to TrueDarklander on the 6th
3. On the 10th, TrueDarklander was evicted from the property
4. Following the eviction, TrueDarklander, acting on behalf of the Worker's Party of Redmont, repurchased the properties from the person who bought the property in the eviction auction for 200,000, despite the property being worth far less
5. TrueDarklander was given no information by either Smami, or the Town of Oakridge regarding the standing eviction order, nor given any advance notice
6. At the time of eviction, TrueDarklander met all playtime requirements to avoid eviction under normal circumstances
7. My client was not given an opportunity to buy back the property from the town before the property was auctioned off to another player.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By not giving proper notice before evicting TrueDarklander, the Town of Oakridge committed Wrongful Eviction as outlined in Section 7 Subsection 5 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
2. By not informing my client that they were about to be evicted, Smami failed to disclose, as outlined in Section 7, Subsection 2 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
3. By wrongfully taking the property from my client when he had no reason to doubt his ownership over the property, the Town of Oakridge committed conversion, as outlined in Section 7, Subsection 7 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
4. The property in question is the Headquarters of the Worker's Party of Redmont, and party money was used with consent to buyback the property. By reducing the amount of funds available to the WPR, the WPR had a reduced capability for advertising, campaigning, and party programs during an election cycle, constituting Loss of Enjoyment for my client and the WPR as a whole as outlined in Section 3, Subsection 5 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
5. According to Section 2, Subsection 6 of the Oakridge Building Regulations, eviction is solely determined by the plot who holds the property in-game (in this case my client). Regulation - Oakridge Building Regulations
6. According to Section 2, Subsection 6 of the Oakridge Building Regulations, a player can be evicted from the property they hold if they have less than 6 hours of playtime in the last 30 days, and my client had well over 6 hours of playtime in the last 30 days at the time of the eviction, thus constituting a violation of this regulation. Regulation - Oakridge Building Regulations
7. According to Section 4, Subsection 2 of the Oakridge Building Regulations, my client was well within his rights to qualify for his right to redemption, and yet was not offered an opportunity to buy back the property from Oakridge, thus constituting a violation of this regulation. Regulation - Oakridge Building Regulations

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $200,000 as restitution for the money my client was forced to spend to buy back the wrongfully taken property
2. $100,000 for stress, confusion, and general loss of enjoyment for my client and the general Worker's Party of Redmont
3. Payment of all legal damages

Transfer of Property from Smami to my client:
Screenshot from 2026-09-08 19-39-14.png
Logs Demonstrating Transfer, and then Eviction:
Screenshot from 2026-09-08 19-39-47.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.
Screenshot from 2026-09-08 19-44-04.png

DATED: This eighth day of September, 2026
 
Last edited:
In compliance with regulations, I am declaring that I made an edit to the original post. I neglected to include that I am also representing the Worker's Party of Redmont, which I have amended by editing in.
I also accidentally wrote the DCT as a defendant, which I have amended by editing out
 
Areaous said:

Case Filing​



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


TrueDarklander, The Worker's Party of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Town of Oakridge, Smami
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. TrueDarklander
2. The Worker's Party of Redmont
3. Smami
4. The Department of Commerce and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. Smami was formerly in possession of the headquarters of the Worker's Party of Redmont
2. Smami was about to be evicted, before she transferred the properties to TrueDarklander on the 6th
3. On the 10th, TrueDarklander was evicted from the property
4. Following the eviction, TrueDarklander, acting on behalf of the Worker's Party of Redmont, repurchased the properties from the person who bought the property in the eviction auction for 200,000, despite the property being worth far less
5. TrueDarklander was given no information by either Smami, or the Town of Oakridge regarding the standing eviction order, nor given any advance notice
6. At the time of eviction, TrueDarklander met all playtime requirements to avoid eviction under normal circumstances
7. My client was not given an opportunity to buy back the property from the town before the property was auctioned off to another player.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By not giving proper notice before evicting TrueDarklander, the Town of Oakridge committed Wrongful Eviction as outlined in Section 7 Subsection 5 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
2. By not informing my client that they were about to be evicted, Smami failed to disclose, as outlined in Section 7, Subsection 2 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
3. By wrongfully taking the property from my client when he had no reason to doubt his ownership over the property, the Town of Oakridge committed conversion, as outlined in Section 7, Subsection 7 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
4. The property in question is the Headquarters of the Worker's Party of Redmont, and party money was used with consent to buyback the property. By reducing the amount of funds available to the WPR, the WPR had a reduced capability for advertising, campaigning, and party programs during an election cycle, constituting Loss of Enjoyment for my client and the WPR as a whole as outlined in Section 3, Subsection 5 of the Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act
5. According to Section 2, Subsection 6 of the Oakridge Building Regulations, eviction is solely determined by the plot who holds the property in-game (in this case my client). Regulation - Oakridge Building Regulations
6. According to Section 2, Subsection 6 of the Oakridge Building Regulations, a player can be evicted from the property they hold if they have less than 6 hours of playtime in the last 30 days, and my client had well over 6 hours of playtime in the last 30 days at the time of the eviction, thus constituting a violation of this regulation. Regulation - Oakridge Building Regulations
7. According to Section 4, Subsection 2 of the Oakridge Building Regulations, my client was well within his rights to qualify for his right to redemption, and yet was not offered an opportunity to buy back the property from Oakridge, thus constituting a violation of this regulation. Regulation - Oakridge Building Regulations

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $200,000 as restitution for the money my client was forced to spend to buy back the wrongfully taken property
2. $100,000 for stress, confusion, and general loss of enjoyment for my client and the general Worker's Party of Redmont
3. Payment of all legal damages

Transfer of Property from Smami to my client:
View attachment 98656
Logs Demonstrating Transfer, and then Eviction:
View attachment 98657


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.
View attachment 98658

DATED: This eighth day of September, 2026
Click to expand...


Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

TheRealDarklander v. The Town of Oakridge et al. [2026] FCR 89​

TrueDarklander, The Worker's Party of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Town of Oakridge, Smami
Defendant



The Hon. Judge CreeperTD and the Hon. Judge Superwoops having each recused themselves, I take carriage of this matter. The Plaintiffs seek $300,000, and the case is properly before this Court in its original jurisdiction as a major civil case whose value exceeds $120,000: Constitution, Part II, § 18(1)(c).

The Court has read the Complaint. Before any Defendant is summoned, the Court must be satisfied that the pleading identifies who sues, who is sued and what is complained of with enough precision that the Defendants can answer it. As it stands, it does not. The Court identifies the following matters, each of which is curable.

First, the Complaint pleads a transfer "on the 6th" and an eviction "on the 10th" without saying of which month, and it does not name the plots in issue. Those details appear, if at all, only in the images attached to it. They are material facts and should be pleaded.

Second, the parties are uncertain. This thread is captioned "TheRealDarklander" and the pleading "TrueDarklander": Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 1.7. Part I of the Complaint continues to name "The Department of Commerce and Transportation", a department which does not exist, notwithstanding counsel's advice at Post No. 2 that the reference had been removed.

Third, the Worker's Party of Redmont appears as a Plaintiff without any statement of the capacity in which it sues or of the injury it suffered in its own right. Every plaintiff must show standing, and the Court may act of its own motion where it is not shown: Court Rules and Procedures, Rules 2.1 and 2.2.

The sufficiency of the claims and the relief sought are matters for the Defendants to raise once summoned, and for the Court to decide in due course. Nothing in this Order touches them.

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. No summons shall issue, and no response is required of either Defendant, until further order of this Court.

2. The Plaintiffs shall, within forty-eight (48) hours of this Order, file a single consolidated response stating the dates of the transfer and of the eviction, the region names of the plots, the correct caption and party list, and the capacity in which the Worker's Party of Redmont sues and the injury it claims in its own right.

3. The Plaintiffs may, in the alternative or in addition, seek leave to file an amended complaint.

4. Counsel shall observe the formatting required of filings in this Court. Every filing shall use the form prescribed by the Templates and by Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court, with all requested information completed in some form, as Rule 3.1 requires. Any amendment to the Complaint shall first be declared and explained to the Court, and only then may the post be edited: Rule 3.3. All evidence shall be uniquely delineated and labelled so that each exhibit can be identified and distinguished: Regulations of the Federal Court, § 11.1. Two images are attached to the Complaint under captions but without exhibit labels. They shall be re-filed with distinct exhibit labels and a description of what each depicts.

5. An extension sought within the response period shall be granted as of right: Regulations of the Federal Court, § 4.2.

This Order is made under § 10 of those Regulations. It is not a finding on the merits, on standing, or on the sufficiency of any claim, and no Defendant is prejudiced by it.



So Ordered,

Judge Theory Fontaine
Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont

DATED: This 27th day of September, 2026

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top