Lawsuit: Pending xdbh v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 10

[nick]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xdbh
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your Honor,

I stand before you to request that this Court prevent an imminent and unlawful injury. As the language of the Taxation Act stands, the Commonwealth is currently executing section 4 of said act in a manner that is not prescribed by law. Specifically, the prescribes that Personal Balance Taxes be calculated using a "Bracket" method while the current mechanism imposed calculates taxes using a "Step" method, which creates "Tax Cliffs" that greatly over-tax.

These illegal seizures have severely hindered my ability to enjoy the Commonwealth and have created a significant "economic chilling effect" on my activity. Under the "Step" method, 0% of my wealth is taxed up to $99,999.99. However, the moment I earn a single cent more, I am subjected to an effective tax rate of 10,000,000% on that marginal cent, resulting in an immediate $1,000.00 seizure. This "Tax Cliff" is a mathematical absurdity that violates the Executive’s duty to enforce the law as written. I believe the merits of this case will become self-evident as my arguments are heard.

I. PARTIES & STANDING​

1. The Plaintiff, xdbh
2. The Defendant, Commonwealth of Redmont
3. The Standing (Court Rules 2.1):

a. Rule 2.1(1)(b): The Plaintiff is directly affected by the application of law, specifically the Taxation Act, which threatens an imminent and certain seizure of property.​

b. Rule 2.1(2): The threatened injury is against the law, as the Defendant utilizes an illegal "Step" calculation.​

c. Rule 2.1(3): The remedy sought—including Injunctions, Writs, and Damages—is applicable under law.​

II. FACTS​

1. "Tax Brackets" or other related terms such as "bracket amounts" are technical and specific terms that refer to a specific way to calculating taxes.
2. The initial proposal for the Taxation Act (the First Wealth Act) utilized the phrasing "Personal balances between [X] and [Y]... shall be taxed," which describes a "Step" taxation system.
3. The Legislature subsequently amended this language (in the Make Commercial Tax less Convoluted Act) to read: "The following bracket amounts are inclusive and shall be taxed..."
4. The amendment specifically removed the phrase "Personal balances" as the subject of the tax rate and replaced it with the technical term "bracket amounts."
5. A "bracket amount" refers to the specific portion of funds falling within a defined range, whereas a "personal balance" refers to the total sum held by an individual.
6. The Commonwealth utilizes an automated mechanism that calculates tax based on the Total Personal Balance (the "Step" method) as opposed to "bracket amounts".
7. The Plaintiff’s balance is imminently approaching the threshold where this improperly calculated seizure will occur.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

CLAIM I: UNLAWFUL EXECUTION OF STATUTE (Taxation Act §4(2))
The Taxation Act §4(2), as amended by the Make Commercial Tax less Convoluted Act, provides that "the following bracket amounts are inclusive and shall be taxed at the following rates weekly." The original First Wealth Tax Act used the phrase "Personal balances between [X] and [Y]... shall be taxed at a rate of..." Congress deliberately replaced "Personal balances" as the subject with "bracket amounts." A "bracket amount" is the portion of funds falling within a defined range. A "personal balance" is the total sum held. The step method taxes the personal balance; the statute mandates taxing bracket amounts. The Commonwealth is executing the statute contrary to its plain text.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A Writ of Mandamus ordering the Commonwealth to refrain from the "Step" calculation method and utilize the "Marginal" method as mandated by the "Bracket Amount" language in the Taxation Act. (Judicial Standards Act §10a)
2. A Declaratory Judgment that the Taxation Act §4(2) requires marginal bracket taxation, and that the Commonwealth's "Step" method is unlawful.
3. Nominal Damages of $5,000 (Legal Damages Act §6).
4. Consequential Damages of $35,000 for the "Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont" due to the economic chilling effect (Legal Damages Act §7).
5. Legal Fees for a pro se litigant at the 30% rate or the Federal Court minimum of $6,000 (Legal Damages Act §9).

V. EVIDENCE & EXHIBITS​

EXHIBIT 1: Taxation Act (As it stands on the filing of this complaint), including its legislative history and all posts pertaining to it.

EXHIBIT 2: Plain text definition and examples of "Tax bracket".

EXHIBIT 3: A visualization of tax rates as it stands (Step Taxation) compared to how the Taxation Act prescribes (Marginal Taxation).

Spoiler: P-003

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 17th day of February 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Dogeington is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xdbh v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 10

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.

 

[Dogeington]

The Commonwealth is present your honor

 

[Muggy21]

The Commonwealth is present your honor

You have 48 Hours to present an answer. Any submission of a motion will toll this deadline, just make it if so inclinde.

Otherwise Answer by 2/19/26 @ 9pm EST.

 

[nick]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor,

In order for me to continue my economic activity without fear of being taxed illegally in the event my personal balance reaches $100,000, I would like to request an emergency injunction preventing the Commonwealth from utilizing a "Step" calculation method my balance taxes. As an alternative, I ask that they utilize the prescribed "Marginal" calculation method, or temporarily cease the collection of my balance taxes, whichever is easier for the court.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor,

In order for me to continue my economic activity without fear of being taxed illegally in the event my personal balance reaches $100,000, I would like to request an emergency injunction preventing the Commonwealth from utilizing a "Step" calculation method my balance taxes. As an alternative, I ask that they utilize the prescribed "Marginal" calculation method, or temporarily cease the collection of my balance taxes, whichever is easier for the court.

DENIED, the Court isn't granting emergency relief from hypothetical harms.

 

[nick]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its denial of the Motion for Emergency Injunction and, in support thereof, submits the following:

I. THE HARM IS IMMINENT AND CERTAIN, NOT HYPOTHETICAL
The Court denied the injunction on the basis that it would constitute "emergency relief from hypothetical harms." The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this characterization, while understandable at first glance, does not reflect the nature of the threat.

The tax mechanism at issue is automated. No human decision-maker exercises discretion over whether or how the tax is applied. The moment the Plaintiff's personal balance reaches $100,000.00, the system will execute a seizure calculated under the "step" method—a method the Plaintiff contends is not authorized by statute. This is not speculative. The mechanism exists, it is active, and its operation is as certain as any automated process can be. The only variable is when the threshold is crossed, not if the seizure will occur.

An injury does not become "hypothetical" merely because the Plaintiff has, through deliberate restraint, managed to delay its occurrence. To hold otherwise would mean that a citizen who sees an unlawful trap ahead and stops walking has no right to ask the Court to remove it—they must first step into it.

II. THE PLAINTIFF IS SUFFERING A PRESENT INJURY
Even setting aside the imminent seizure, the Plaintiff is experiencing ongoing, present harm. The threat of an illegally calculated tax has forced the Plaintiff to artificially suppress their personal balance below the $100,000 threshold. The Plaintiff is currently unable to freely engage in economic activity—earning, saving, and transacting—without fear of triggering an unlawful taking. In financing the development of their fund, the Plaintiff has been forced to delay receiving funds—which may exceed $100,000—until this case is likely adjourned, rather than immediately capitalizing their firm, out of fear of illegal taxation.

This "economic chilling effect" is not a future harm. It is happening now, every day, and it directly impairs the Plaintiff's ability to enjoy the Commonwealth.

In Redmont Civil Liberties Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 60, this Court permitted a case to proceed where the plaintiff's claimed injury was, in part, a chilling effect on protected activity. That case was ultimately withdrawn by the plaintiff—it was not dismissed by the Court for lack of standing. The Plaintiff submits that the same reasoning applies here: a chilling effect caused by the threat of unlawful government action is a present, cognizable harm sufficient to confer standing.

III. THE PLAINTIFF'S DUTY TO MITIGATE COMPELS THE VERY CONDUCT THE COURT CHARACTERIZES AS "HYPOTHETICAL"
Under the Legal Damages Act §4(3)(a), the Plaintiff has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages. The Plaintiff's decision to suppress their balance below $100,000 is not evidence that the harm is speculative—it is the direct and legally required consequence of a known, imminent, unlawful seizure. To deny relief on this basis would place the Plaintiff in an impossible position: suffer the unlawful seizure and be told they should have mitigated, or mitigate and be told they have no case. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the law cannot demand both.

IV. THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORS THE PLAINTIFF
Under the Judicial Standards Act §9(1)(b), emergency injunctions are issued "before the court has tried a case to prevent harm." The risk here is asymmetric: if this Court grants the injunction and the Plaintiff ultimately loses, the Commonwealth can collect the owed taxes retroactively with no permanent harm to the treasury. If the Court denies the injunction and the Plaintiff ultimately prevails, their property will have already been unlawfully seized. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this balance favors granting relief.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court reconsider its denial and grant the emergency injunction.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Reconsideration for Emergency Injunction

DENIED.


The Court reviews Plaintiff’s initial filings and his motion to renew de novo. In denial of the prior instant motion, the Court stated that relief will not be granted from “hypothetical harms.” The Court will reiterate its position and expound upon it given the arguments levied by counsel.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

Plaintiff proffers immediate and ongoing harm as a result of the allegedly improper taxation scheme employed by the Government. He calls it a “seizure” and further states that it is within the prerogative of this Court to pre-emptively prevent harm prior to actual injury. He states how he employed “deliberate restraint” from the alleged taxation harm and that his ability to “freely engage in economic activity” is chilled.

This is not compelling.

Plaintiff, in his first EI motion, has already affirmed under perjury that he has not been directly taxed yet. Thus, he has no direct financial harm as a result of the Government’s policy; this action therefore is a public interest suit (see PlureGlassHouse v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117 ). In line with FCR 117, the Court sees this current action as a public interest suit with a unique controversy (alleged misapprehension of the Taxation Act). The harm borne out of that controversy is financial, overtaxation of citizens as a result of the Government’s mistake. Plaintiff proffers to this court that it is an irreparable harm to have one’s money taken as a result of Government action. This is not a reasonable interpretation of an “irreparable harm.” In our common law, irreparable harm is an injury that can’t be reasonably remedied with a monetary award. See the following cases where an EI was used to ensure a party did not abscond with contested assets:

• IgnitedTNT v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 3
• Volt Bank Inc. v. Sagamo2008 [2025] FCR 135
• Superwoops v. Red Nose Capital [2025] FCR 136
• Bank of Reveille v. Kingbob99878 [2025] DCR 108

The temporary loss of money is not an irreparable harm. The Government is the issuer of the currency, it can’t run out of cash. The Government, if it loses this case, would be able to return the funds that would temporarily have been lost.

Lastly, the power of taxation is a constitutional power of Congress. The Court is in no position to broadly halt taxation across the country, nor it will order Staff to modify the plugin to the benefit of Plaintiff alone. The Plaintiff approached this Court with a public interest suit, the public at-large must benefit, not just him.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

[nick]

I thank the court for the reconsideration and the re-classification of my case, and humbly ask the court to clarify when the defense must file a response to the complaint by. If it is

You have 48 Hours to present an answer

which would make it Feb 18; if it is

2/19/26

or if the deadline has been tolled.

 

[Muggy21]

I thank the court for the reconsideration and the re-classification of my case, and humbly ask the court to clarify when the defense must file a response to the complaint by. If it is

which would make it Feb 18; if it is

or if the deadline has been tolled.

2/18/26 @ 9pm EST for the Answer. If CW files a motion to dismiss, the deadline for the answer is stopped.