Lawsuit: Pending waygooda v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] FCR 60

[lnvlsbie]

ase Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


.CrownedEtyYT and waygooda (Plaintiffs)
v.
Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)


COMPLAINT


The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendant for wrongful arrest, prosecution, and conviction for bank robbery based on insufficient, unreliable, and non-determinative evidence. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant relied primarily on map screenshots and coordinate-based inference without establishing an essential element of the offence, namely actual entry into the bank vault.


The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendant’s investigative and prosecutorial conduct failed to meet the required evidentiary threshold under the Criminal Code, resulting in wrongful convictions, financial loss, and significant reputational harm.


I. PARTIES

1. .CrownedEtyYT (Plaintiff)
2. waygooda (Plaintiff)
3. Department of Homeland Security (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiffs were charged and convicted of bank robbery by the Defendant.
2. The Defendant’s case relied primarily upon map screenshots and coordinate-based evidence.
3. No direct evidence was produced establishing that either Plaintiff entered the bank vault.
4. The Criminal Code distinguishes bank trespassing from bank robbery, requiring proof of vault entry for robbery charges.
5. Despite this distinction, the Defendant proceeded with charges and convictions.
6. The Plaintiffs were fined and penalised as a result of these convictions.
7. The Plaintiffs suffered reputational harm, loss of standing, and other consequential damages within the server community.
8. DHS officers confirming they use coordinates from the map site without providing timestamps in the screenshots in arrest filings and using it as evidence which can be considered fabrication of evidence due to there being a 2 block tall gap between the floor and ground accessible with some glitches making the map an unreliable source.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant wrongfully convicted the Plaintiffs based on insufficient evidence.
2. The Defendant failed to establish all required elements of the offence beyond reasonable evidentiary standards.
3. The Defendant relied on speculative or inferential mapping evidence in place of direct proof.
4. The Defendant’s actions constitute negligent investigation and procedural misconduct.
5. The Defendant’s conduct caused financial, reputational, and psychological harm to the Plaintiffs.
6. The Defendant’s actions materially reduced the Plaintiffs’ ability to enjoy and participate in the server environment.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. An order directing the immediate removal of all bank robbery convictions from both Plaintiffs’ criminal records.
2. Full reimbursement of all fines paid as a result of the wrongful convictions.
3. Compensation for time served at a rate of $100 per minute for each Plaintiff.
4. Compensation of $30,000 to each Plaintiff for reputational damages suffered.
5. Compensation of $25,000 to each Plaintiff for emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, and mental suffering.
6. Compensation of $25,000 to each Plaintiff for loss of enjoyment, reduced quality of gameplay, and diminished server participation.
7. Compensation of $20,000 to each Plaintiff for time and resources expended in attempting to resolve the matter prior to litigation.
8. Compensation of $15,000 to each Plaintiff for loss of opportunities and damage to standing within the community.
9. Compensation of $15,000 to each Plaintiff for negligent investigation and failure to properly verify evidentiary requirements prior to conviction.
10. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary awards where permitted.
11. Legal fees equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total judgment, or such greater amount as the Court deems appropriate.
12. Any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Total sum being

V. EVIDENCE


P-001 Police statement indicating potential reliance on inferential or insufficient evidence.

P-002 Arrest report relating to the Plaintiffs.

P-003 Prior DHS arrest documentation demonstrating pattern of similar evidentiary practice.

P-004 Criminal Code Act, Part VIII §§6–7 establishing required legal elements of the offence.

P-005 Criminal Code Act further supporting clai


P-006 Supporting screenshots and server records relevant to the conviction.

P-007 officer being asked about the situation

P-008 officer answering questions regarding the situation and admitting it

P-009 officer confirming the allegations

P-010 further officer confirmation

P-011 Proof of representation of waygooda

P-012 Proof of representation of .CrownedEtyYT


By submitting this filing, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that knowingly providing false statements to the Court may result in penalties including perjury under the Court’s rules.


DATED: This 30th day of June, 2026.

 

[Superwoops]

Writ of Summons

@AmityBlamity is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of .CrownedEtyYT, waygooda v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] FCR 60

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.

 

[Superwoops]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - QUALIFICATION

The Court, upon sua sponte review of @lnvlsbie's legal qualifications, finds that counsel lacks the admin law qualification.
The Court is concerned that the subject matter of this case may require said specialisation. As such, @lnvlsbie please answer the following question: What makes you qualified to represent the Plaintiff in this case?

Should you attain further qualifications, please inform the Court in your answer to this Order.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - QUALIFICATION

The Court, upon sua sponte review of @lnvlsbie's legal qualifications, finds that counsel lacks the admin law qualification.
The Court is concerned that the subject matter of this case may require said specialisation. As such, @lnvlsbie please answer the following question: What makes you qualified to represent the Plaintiff in this case?

Should you attain further qualifications, please inform the Court in your answer to this Order.


View attachment 89506

Your honor may I have a colleague with the qualification needed take over instead due to IRL issues?

 

[Superwoops]

Your honor may I have a colleague with the qualification needed take over instead due to IRL issues?

Yes. The Court would require the Plaintiff's written consent for your colleague to represent them, as proof of representation only extends to yourself in this case.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Your Honor,

I am present.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[AmityBlamity]

Present, Your Honour.

 

[Superwoops]

Present, Your Honour.

Excellent.
Please post an answer to complaint within 72 hours.

 

[Johnes]

Your Honour,
We apologize for the delays, we're very busy with the influx of defense cases. May we get a 24-hour extension to post an answer?

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE/HEARSAY

The defense moves that P-001 is struck from the record. The conversation took place in private DM's and not through a Department of Homeland Security ticket, this is an unsworn out of court statement that the individual made, which could be considered hearsay (I found a motion to strike more fitting than an objection for hearsay). This statement was not made in the name of the DHS and it is improperly presented as such. If the Defense wishes to use this individual's testimony, they should add this individual to their witness list.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that P-003 is struck from the record. This piece of evidence is not relevant to the case. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any proof of the person that is shown in these criminal records has given permission for their criminal records to be used at trial. And the evidence raises questions about how this evidence was obtained.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor and counsel, I'd like to inform the court that Plaintiff .CrownedEtyYT has been long deported.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Your Honour,
We apologize for the delays, we're very busy with the influx of defense cases. May we get a 24-hour extension to post an answer?

Additionally to this, as I'm sure the court's aware, we have recently gone through leadership changes again and the majority of DoJ personnel is on strike. Therefore, I would like to request an additional extension of 24 hours from this post. It is not our intention to delay this case.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor and counsel, I'd like to inform the court that Plaintiff .CrownedEtyYT has been long deported.

View attachment 90994

The Defense moves that all claims relating to .CrownedEtyYT be dismissed, as this individual has been permanently deported.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Motions to Dismiss

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE/HEARSAY

The defense moves that P-001 is struck from the record. The conversation took place in private DM's and not through a Department of Homeland Security ticket, this is an unsworn out of court statement that the individual made, which could be considered hearsay (I found a motion to strike more fitting than an objection for hearsay). This statement was not made in the name of the DHS and it is improperly presented as such. If the Defense wishes to use this individual's testimony, they should add this individual to their witness list.

The Defense argues that P-001 should be struck because it consists of an out-of-court statement. The Plaintiff respectfully disagrees. Hearsay is explicitly allowed if it relates to a person's reputation or character. Nearly every line in this exhibit gives or contributes to a characterization of the DHS. The last line characterizes the DHS's policing as 'lazy', and the first two lines explain that an area is inaccessible, which better explains why the policing of the DHS is lazy. As all of the statements in this exhibit serve to either characterize or provide context for the characterization of the DHS, the Defense's Motion to Strike should be denied.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that P-003 is struck from the record. This piece of evidence is not relevant to the case. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any proof of the person that is shown in these criminal records has given permission for their criminal records to be used at trial. And the evidence raises questions about how this evidence was obtained.

The Plaintiff concedes. This evidence is not related to the case at hand, and should be struck accordingly.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that all claims relating to .CrownedEtyYT be dismissed, as this individual has been permanently deported.

The Plaintiff concedes. .CrownedEtyYT should be dismissed from this case; however, waygooda still retains the right to legal representation.

 

[Superwoops]

Your Honor and counsel, I'd like to inform the court that Plaintiff .CrownedEtyYT has been long deported.

View attachment 90994

Acknowledged.

All parties note that I am currently away and will be back Wednesday. All pending items will be ruled upon then.

 

[Superwoops]

Additionally to this, as I'm sure the court's aware, we have recently gone through leadership changes again and the majority of DoJ personnel is on strike. Therefore, I would like to request an additional extension of 24 hours from this post. It is not our intention to delay this case.

Leadership changes and an increased caseload are not excuses for missing deadlines. They are factors taken into consideration when granting extensions.

The Commonwealth is warned that future instances where the Commonwealth fails to adhere to court deadlines may carry contempt charges.

You have 24 hours from this post to submit an answer to complaint.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

.CrownedEtyYT and waygooda
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM the Plaintiffs were charged and convicted of bank robbery by the Defendant.
2. AFFIRM the Defendant’s ‘case’ relied primarily on map screenshots and coordinate-based evidence.
3. DENY no direct evidence was produced establishing that either Plaintiff entered the bank vault.
4. AFFIRM the Criminal Code distinguishes bank trespassing from bank robbery, requiring proof of vault entry for robbery charges.
5. AFFIRM the Defendant proceeded with charges and convictions.
6. AFFIRM the Plaintiffs were fined and penalised as a result of these convictions.
7. DENY the Plaintiffs suffered reputational harm, loss of standing, and other consequential damages within the server community.
8. NO CONTEST “DHS officers confirming they use coordinates from the map site without providing timestamps in the screenshots in arrest filings and using it as evidence”
9. DENY this can be considered fabrication of evidence.
10. NO CONTEST there being a 2 block tall gap between the floor and ground accessible with some glitches DENY this making the map an unreliable source.

II. DEFENCES
1. Criminal records are not public, even if the arrest is found to be unjustified, the Plaintiff’s claim about their reputation being damaged is unfounded.
2. The Plaintiff’s filing does not show any evidence relating to waygooda’s claims.
3. P-001 is titled as a “Police statement”, it is however important to note (if this piece of evidence is not struck) that this is not a statement from the Department of Homeland Security. The defense would also like to note that this piece of evidence does not support the Plaintiff’s claim: “...due to there being a 2 block tall gap between the floor and ground accessible with some glitches making the map an unreliable source.” as P-001 shows the opposite “But it’s inaccessible nowadays”.
4. The Plaintiff states “this can be considered fabrication of evidence.” However, even if the evidence were to be considered insufficient by the Court, it would not be considered “fabrication” as the evidence was not altered or “fabricated” in any way.

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 14th day of July 2026

 

[Ebborsnam]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

.CrownedEtyYT and waygooda
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM the Plaintiffs were charged and convicted of bank robbery by the Defendant.
2. AFFIRM the Defendant’s ‘case’ relied primarily on map screenshots and coordinate-based evidence.
3. DENY no direct evidence was produced establishing that either Plaintiff entered the bank vault.
4. AFFIRM the Criminal Code distinguishes bank trespassing from bank robbery, requiring proof of vault entry for robbery charges.
5. AFFIRM the Defendant proceeded with charges and convictions.
6. AFFIRM the Plaintiffs were fined and penalised as a result of these convictions.
7. DENY the Plaintiffs suffered reputational harm, loss of standing, and other consequential damages within the server community.
8. NO CONTEST “DHS officers confirming they use coordinates from the map site without providing timestamps in the screenshots in arrest filings and using it as evidence”
9. DENY this can be considered fabrication of evidence.
10. NO CONTEST there being a 2 block tall gap between the floor and ground accessible with some glitches making the map an unreliable source.

II. DEFENCES
1. Criminal records are not public, even if the arrest is found to be unjustified, the Plaintiff’s claim about their reputation being damaged is unfounded.
2. The Plaintiff’s filing does not show any evidence relating to waygooda’s claims.
3. P-001 is titled as a “Police statement”, it is however important to note (if this piece of evidence is not struck) that this is not a statement from the Department of Homeland Security. The defense would also like to note that this piece of evidence does not support the Plaintiff’s claim: “...due to there being a 2 block tall gap between the floor and ground accessible with some glitches making the map an unreliable source.” as P-001 shows the opposite “But it’s inaccessible nowadays”.
4. The Plaintiff states “this can be considered fabrication of evidence.” However, even if the evidence were to be considered insufficient by the Court, it would not be considered “fabrication” as the evidence was not altered or “fabricated” in any way.

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 14th day of July 2026

Your Honor, the defense respectfully requests that the court allows the defense to amend this answer to complaint to show:
"10. NO CONTEST there being a 2 block tall gap between the floor and ground accessible with some glitches DENY this making the map an unreliable source." pursuant to Court Rule 3.4.

 

[Superwoops]

Very well. We will now enter Discovery, which will remain open for five days.

 

[Superwoops]

Your Honor, the defense respectfully requests that the court allows the defense to amend this answer to complaint to show:
"10. NO CONTEST there being a 2 block tall gap between the floor and ground accessible with some glitches DENY this making the map an unreliable source." pursuant to Court Rule 3.4.

Granted.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves that all claims relating to .CrownedEtyYT be dismissed, as this individual has been permanently deported.

Seeing as their legal status in Redmont has changed, all claims arising from .CrownedEtyYT are dismissed. Claims arising from the co-Plaintiff (waygooda) stand.
The case thread will be renamed accordingly.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Very well. We will now enter Discovery, which will remain open for five days.

Your Honor, are the motions to strike yet to be ruled on?

 

[Ebborsnam]

Seeing as the defense has not submitted any evidence regarding waygooda's claim. We request that they submit waygooda's criminal record (regarding this case) as evidence as soon as possible.

 

[juniperfig]

Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.

The former Attorney General juniperfig has since been deported, this should be ignored.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Apologies, Your Honor. I was caught up in the chaos of the recent few days; and, to my understanding, the Federal Court was on strike. Attached is waygooda's criminal record.

Spoiler: Criminal Record

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE/HEARSAY

The defense moves that P-001 is struck from the record. The conversation took place in private DM's and not through a Department of Homeland Security ticket, this is an unsworn out of court statement that the individual made, which could be considered hearsay (I found a motion to strike more fitting than an objection for hearsay). This statement was not made in the name of the DHS and it is improperly presented as such. If the Defense wishes to use this individual's testimony, they should add this individual to their witness list.

This motion is granted. The evidence is struck. Opposing counsel is free to call upon them as a witness.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that P-003 is struck from the record. This piece of evidence is not relevant to the case. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any proof of the person that is shown in these criminal records has given permission for their criminal records to be used at trial. And the evidence raises questions about how this evidence was obtained.

This motion is granted.

 

[Superwoops]

@Ebborsnam @NoMoreUno Discovery will close 24 hours after this post. I've taken this decision to account for the recent Court leave of absence and recent public turmoil. This is your final chance of submitting evidence and submitting witness lists.

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that P-002 is struck from the record. This piece of evidence is not relevant to the case as it is regarding the Plaintiff that has been removed from the case.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO STRIKE

The defense moves that P-002 is struck from the record. This piece of evidence is not relevant to the case as it is regarding the Plaintiff that has been removed from the case.

Motion granted. Evidence is struck.

 

[NoMoreUno]

The Plaintiff submits the following witness list:

waygooda
jsrkiwi
CreeperTD

Additionally, the images containing waygooda's criminal record seem to have expired. They are reattached below.

Spoiler: P-013

 

[Superwoops]

The Plaintiff submits the following witness list:

waygooda
jsrkiwi
CreeperTD

Additionally, the images containing waygooda's criminal record seem to have expired. They are reattached below.

Spoiler: Criminal Record

View attachment 92419View attachment 92420View attachment 92421

Please rename the spoiler to comply with Court rules.

Discovery is now closed. Plaintiff (cc: @lnvlsbie), please present your Opening Statements within 72 hours.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Amended. You seem to have pinged @lnvlsbie as Plaintiff; to clarify, as I took over as Plaintiff's acting counsel, I am to provide the Opening Statement, correct?

 

[Ebborsnam]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense moves to dismiss the case with prejudice pursuant to Court Rule 5.5, on the grounds that the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence supporting the claims in the Complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that they were unjustly charged with Bank Robbery and that the Department of Homeland Security lacked sufficient evidence to support the charge. However, the Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that the DHS acted improperly. The only valid evidence submitted by the Plaintiff of are a screenshot of the Plaintiff’s in‑game criminal record, which merely confirms the existence of the Bank Robbery charge and does not prove that the charge was improper and screenshots a DHS ticket describing the general evidence typically in order to charge an individual with Bank Robbery, which does not specifically reference to the Plaintiff. Neither exhibit provides any basis to support the Plaintiff’s claim that the DHS lacked evidence and acted improperly.

Pursuant to Court Rule 5.5, the Court may dismiss a case after discovery when the Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support the claim presented in the Complaint. Discovery has concluded and the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence supporting the claim that the DHS acted improperly, that the DHS lacked evidence to support the Bank Robbery charge.

For the above reasons, the Defense respectfully requests that this Court Dismiss the case with prejudice pursuant to Court Rule 5.5.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Requesting 24 hours to respond to this Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Superwoops]

Requesting 24 hours to respond to this Motion to Dismiss.

Granted. Note that the deadline to submit Opening Statements is not tolled.

 

[Superwoops]

(Unless you ask me, of course)

 

[NoMoreUno]

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense claims that no evidence supporting the claims in the initial complaint has been provided. This is incorrect.

Lack of Claim applies if a claim for relief has insufficient evidence to support the civil charge. This is not the case. The claims for relief base themselves on the fact that an arrest happened, and that this arrest was wrongful. Based on the provided criminal record, we know for a fact that at least the Defendant was arrested by an officer of the DHS; thus, we have, at the bare minimum, some relevant evidence capable of supporting our claim for relief. Basis is provided for our claim.

We are also given screenshots detailing the process that the DHS uses to determine what constitutes bank robbery as opposed to bank trespassing. While this does not directly support our claim, it certainly does indirectly. As the Defense identified, these screenshots show "the general evidence typically in order to charge an individual with Bank Robbery"; however, this evidence can indirectly support the general claim. If standards for arrest have been established, then if they can be proven to have been violated through further argumentation and testimony, we can prove our claim of wrongful arrest.

The Plaintiff has also provided multiple relevant witnesses, including the DHS officer directly responsible for the arrest, whose testimonies could potentially be relevant. Dismissing this case without hearing these testimonies when they could serve to back the purported claims would be premature.

This should serve as sufficient reason to continue ligitating this case.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Requesting that the deadline for the Plaintiff's Opening Statement be tolled pending a ruling on the Defense's Motion to Dismiss. I'm pretty busy this weekend and I'd prefer not to spend time writing an opening only to have it dismissed.

 

[Superwoops]

Requesting that the deadline for the Plaintiff's Opening Statement be tolled pending a ruling on the Defense's Motion to Dismiss. I'm pretty busy this weekend and I'd prefer not to spend time writing an opening only to have it dismissed.

Granted, deadline tolled.