TitanOfDestruct v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF REDMONT

Status
Not open for further replies.
TitanOfDestruct

TitanOfDestruct

Citizen
Grave Digger
Joined
Apr 9, 2025
Messages
7
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF REDMONT CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

TitanOfDestruct, Plaintiff,

v.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF REDMONT, Defendant.






I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE The Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the "Ensure Illegal Gambling Practices are Illegal Act." The Plaintiff contends that this legislation oversteps the government's regulatory authority and infringes upon protected economic liberties.

II. PARTIES The Plaintiff is TitanOfDestruct, a citizen of Redmont. The Defendant is the Government of Redmont.

III. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

  1. This Court holds original jurisdiction as the Plaintiff is seeking Declaratory Relief regarding the constitutionality of a Federal Statute.
  2. Because the Plaintiff is challenging the validity of the Act itself—and not merely seeking damages—this matter involves a fundamental question of Constitutional Law exceeding the jurisdiction of the District Court.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

  1. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Redmont with the intent to establish a business within the gambling sector.
  2. The Act creates an immediate and insurmountable barrier to the Plaintiff's planned business venture.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION

  • Count I: Right to Industry. The Act serves as a total prohibition rather than a regulation.
  • Count II: Void for Vagueness. The law is too ambiguous for a reasonable citizen to follow.
VII. ARGUMENT ON JUDICIAL ACCESS

  1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Redmont Constitution does not establish a minimum activity requirement as a prerequisite for seeking justice. 2. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is a fundamental right of all citizens, regardless of recent play-time, provided the claim is brought within the Statute of Limitations.
  2. Any dismissal based solely on a period of prior inactivity—where no court deadlines were missed and the Statute of Limitations has not expired—constitutes an unconstitutional denial of the right to access the courts.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff requests that this Court:

  1. Declare the Act unconstitutional.
  2. Issue an Injunction to stop the enforcement of the Act.
Respectfully Submitted, s/ TitanOfDestruct Plaintiff Pro Se
 

Attachments

What is your in-game name.
 
TitanOfDestruct said:
TitanOfDestruct
Click to expand...
1771207795743.png
 
that bring that, there is no law that say i cant file a lawsuit just because ive not be online in a while. unless you want to state that in a dismissal of the lawsuit
 
TitanOfDestruct said:
that bring that, there is no law that say i cant file a lawsuit just because ive not be online in a while. unless you want to state that in a dismissal of the lawsuit
Click to expand...

You say in a while, the server says not at all.

Do you have an old account?
 
yes i am, not only have i been before this but also ive bought in game case becuase i like the system of gov. so far
 
Cool, what's your minecraft username. TitanofDestruct aint it.
 
Your Honor, I respectfully contest the assertion that my 'inactive state' precludes this lawsuit.

  1. No Statutory Requirement: There is no provision in the Redmont Constitution or the Judiciary Act that mandates a specific 'activity quota' as a prerequisite for a citizen to seek a redress of grievances.
  2. Current Presence: Regardless of prior absence, I am currently active, present, and fully prepared to prosecute this case. A 'past' inactive state does not permanently waive a citizen's constitutional rights.
  3. The 'Laches' Defense: Inactive status only matters if my absence caused 'irreparable harm' to the government's ability to defend itself. Since I am challenging a law that is currently in effect, my brief absence has not changed the legal facts of the case.
  4. Tolling of the Statute: If the law was passed while I was away, my right to sue should be protected under the principle of 'Equitable Tolling'—I am bringing this challenge as soon as I became aware of the infringement on my rights.
 
The Federal Court requires Plaintiff to secure Counsel in order to file any future cases before the Courts.

1) This is the COMMONWEALTH of Redmont, not the Republic.
2) Ensure Illegal Gambling Practices are Illegal Act isn't a law. It is a draft of a bill not yet in effect.
3) The "Judiciary Act" is an American law, we don't adhere to it on Redmont.
4) Plaintiff is not a citizen of Redmont, the Constitution requires Plaintiff to have joined the Minecraft server at some point.

1771208706354.png
 
The Federal Court administratively dismisses the action. Plaintiff, "TitanofDestruct" must have counsel to file any complaint before this Court.

All cases filed without such authorization will be deleted with no notice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top