Lawsuit: Dismissed totemundying v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 122

essx

essx

Citizen
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Grave Digger
totemundying
totemundying
Solicitor
Joined
Aug 22, 2023
Messages
35

Case Filing




IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


totemundying (Plaintiff)

v.

Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
“I was fined $600 on July 9th for 'Illegal Advertising', an offense that Universoul_, a member of the Department of Homeland security previously messaged me about providing me with a verbal warning which implied that if I continue, I will be /fined. I messaged back stating that I was not affiliated with the company name I had mentioned (which in this case meant I had nothing to gain from mentioning their name. full disclosure: I am employed there as a contractor, but that ONLY involves /advertising, not encouraging other people to join), after which I was fined $600.”



I. PARTIES

1. totemundying (plaintiff), an individual that receives nothing from mentioning a company name
2. Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. I told a new member that slashad pays $120 per ad.
2. I was informed in a /msg by Universoul_ that he deemed my message illegal advertising and that if I were to continue I would be /fine d.
3. I responded saying I had no affiliation with slashad (which in this case meant I had nothing to gain from mentioning their name).
4. I did not continue.
5. I was fined $600.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant & its employee has accused me of breaking the law.
2. The defendant & its employee has given me a warning implying I wouldn't be fined this time, then fined me $600.
3. The defendant & its employee gave me emotional distress by scrutinizing my speech.
4. The defendant & its employee has caused me emotional distress.
5. The defendant & its employee has committed police misconduct.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensation of $600 for the fine.
2. Removing the false charge off my police record.
3. Compensation of $15,000 for the loss of time I have suffered by having to research and create a case against the defendant.
4. Compensation of $5,000 for the emotional distress the defendant & its employee have caused me to suffer.
5. Compensation of $4,000 for the damage to my reputation as a person that might negatively affect my quality of life on the server.
6. A clear & defined outline of what the DHS and its employees consider illegal advertising so other members of the server don't continue to be robbed by the DHS.

Total of compensation totals up to $24,600

EVIDENCE

P-001

Screenshot 2026-07-09 at 3.27.23 PM.png

P-002
Screenshot 2026-07-09 at 3.13.04 PM.png

P-003
Screenshot 2026-07-09 at 3.13.59 PM.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.
DATED: This 9th day of July 2026

 
essx said:

Case Filing




IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


totemundying (Plaintiff)

v.

Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
“I was fined $600 on July 9th for 'Illegal Advertising', an offense that Universoul_, a member of the Department of Homeland security previously messaged me about providing me with a verbal warning which implied that if I continue, I will be /fined. I messaged back stating that I was not affiliated with the company name I had mentioned (which in this case meant I had nothing to gain from mentioning their name. full disclosure: I am employed there as a contractor, but that ONLY involves /advertising, not encouraging other people to join), after which I was fined $600.”



I. PARTIES

1. totemundying (plaintiff), an individual that receives nothing from mentioning a company name
2. Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. I told a new member that slashad pays $120 per ad.
2. I was informed in a /msg by Universoul_ that he deemed my message illegal advertising and that if I were to continue I would be /fine d.
3. I responded saying I had no affiliation with slashad (which in this case meant I had nothing to gain from mentioning their name).
4. I did not continue.
5. I was fined $600.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant & its employee has accused me of breaking the law.
2. The defendant & its employee has given me a warning implying I wouldn't be fined this time, then fined me $600.
3. The defendant & its employee gave me emotional distress by scrutinizing my speech.
4. The defendant & its employee has caused me emotional distress.
5. The defendant & its employee has committed police misconduct.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensation of $600 for the fine.
2. Removing the false charge off my police record.
3. Compensation of $15,000 for the loss of time I have suffered by having to research and create a case against the defendant.
4. Compensation of $5,000 for the emotional distress the defendant & its employee have caused me to suffer.
5. Compensation of $4,000 for the damage to my reputation as a person that might negatively affect my quality of life on the server.
6. A clear & defined outline of what the DHS and its employees consider illegal advertising so other members of the server don't continue to be robbed by the DHS.

Total of compensation totals up to $24,600

EVIDENCE

P-001
View attachment 90202
P-002
View attachment 90199
P-003
View attachment 90201

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 9th day of July 2026

Click to expand...


This is a pseudo-appeal of a criminal charge and a tort action against the Commonwealth.

What authority in the RCCA do you rely on for your claims? If not in the RCCA, then where?

You have 48 Hours to respond.
 
In response to the Court’s question, I'd like to clarify that this is not intended to be a criminal appeal by any means. I challenge the legality and procedure of the DHS enforcement action and seek civil remedies under the RCCA.



Plaintiff relies primarily on Part XI §6 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Denial of Due Process. DHS made and enforced a decision affecting Plaintiff’s property and record by imposing a $600 fine and an Illegal Advertising charge. Plaintiff alleges that this decision was made on an incorrect application of the offence and without sufficiently establishing that Plaintiff’s conduct met its elements.

Plaintiff also relies, in the alternative, on Part XI §4 of the RCCA, Wrongful Seizure of Property. If the fine was imposed without lawful authority because no offence occurred, Plaintiff seeks restitution of the $600.

The underlying issue is whether Plaintiff’s message was an “advertisement” under Part X §7 of the Criminal Code Act. The offence prohibits advertising a business, goods, or political campaign in an undesignated public chat. It does not state that every mention of a business is automatically advertising. Additionally the Commercial Standards Act defines a Commercial Advertisement as an advertisement intended to benefit or harm a privately owned or operated business. Plaintiff submits that intent is the relevant distinction here, and by that very definition, the message should not be classified as an advertisement.

Respectfully,
totemundying
 
Muggy21 said:
"2. Removing the false charge off my police record"

This makes it an appeal of a criminal charge.
Click to expand...
Your honor,

In light of the Court’s clarification, the plaintiff respectfully requests dismissal of this case, and will reopen a case after a denial of a direct appeal through DHS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top