Lawsuit: In Session xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 109

[OwnedBlock]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The defendant, Commonwealth of Redmont, has seized plaintiff's entire balance (as indicated by exhibit P-001 filed later in this post) seemingly without providing proper justification, in a way that clearly infringes on the enjoyment of their funds and plaintiff's constitutional rights (The Constitution, specifically Part V, Section 35, right 15 and 17).

Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order the Commonwealth to return the funds ($147696.08) until this case has been adjourned or until Commonwealth acts in a constitutionally-consistent manner to seize them. Plaintiff respectfully requests a swift ruling on this motion.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Commonwealth seized $147,696.08 from my personal balance on 06 Nov 26, citing an alleged continued threat to player safety or enjoyment arising from the commission of a crime under JSA Part II, s6(1).

I have not been charged with any offence, nor have I been notified of an investigation into my conduct. Therefore, I consider the Commonwealth's actions an infringement of my constitutional rights:

"(15) Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

The seizure of my entire balance without justification, let alone a criminal charge, cannot be considered anything other than an infringement of that protection.

"(17) Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them."

The protection against arbitrary detention and the right to be informed of the reasons for state action must extend, in principle, to the deprivation of a person's property.

The Commonwealth cannot simply point to Section 6(1) and treat that as sufficient justification. It needs to demonstrate that the circumstances actually warranted its use. Otherwise, what is to prevent the prosecuting authority from seizing any citizen's entire balance, without charge, notice or explanation, simply by alleging a threat to player safety or enjoyment?

I therefore seek the immediate return of my seized assets, together with significant penalties against the Commonwealth to deter future breaches of constitutional rights and prevent the misuse of its statutory powers.

I further seek a determination that any future seizure under these provisions must be supported by identifiable criminal conduct and sufficient evidence to establish that the statutory threshold has been met.

The Commonwealth must not be permitted to exercise extraordinary powers without justification or accountability, and there must be meaningful consequences when it fails to do so.

I. PARTIES​

1. xEndeavour (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS​

1. On 6th of November, 2026, the DHS/DoJ has seized $147696.08 from the plaintiff. (P-001)
2. There was no ongoing threat to player safety and enjoyment due to the commission of a crime by plaintiff.
3. No prior reason was given nor prior charge was laid behind the seizure of these funds via typical communication channels (Discord, DC Forums, ingame mail).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Conversion​

The Commonwealth has committed Conversion under the Redmont Civil Code Act, specifically Part VII, Section 7:

7. Conversion
Violation Type: Intentional
Remedy: Treble damages; Restitution
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and
(b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and
(c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by:
[...]
(iii) embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretences; or
[...]

The Commonwealth has obtained the property by false pretences - there was no ongoing threat to player safety and enjoyment due to the commission of a crime by plaintiff, as alleged by fact 2. They could not have reasonably believed that they had lawful authority to take a citizen's entire balance for the commission of a crime which they consider to be so egregious that it posed a threat to ongoing threat to citizens and enjoyment, particularly when no charges have been laid against the plaintiff.

2. Violation of Constitutional Rights​

The Commonwealth has committed a violation of rights under the Constitution, specifically Part V, Section 35, right 15 and 17:

(15) Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

[...]

(17) Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.

The Commonwealth has committed an unreasonable seizure of plaintiff's funds and not provided a reason behind the detention thereof through typical communication channels to plaintiff, as alleged by facts 2 and 3.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff hereby requests the court provide the following relief:
1a. Treble compensatory damages (RCCA, Part III, Section 2) of $443088.24, as permitted by definition of Conversion in the above-mentioned RCCA section.
OR In the event the court finds insufficient grounds to find defendant liable for Conversion as outlined:
1b. Restitution of the funds ($147696.08), pending Commonwealth's action in a more constitutionally-consistent method.
2. Punitive damages (RCCA, Part III, Section 3) of $50000 for this outrageous constitutional violation.
3. Legal fees (RCCA, Part III, Section 7) of 30% of the case value (equivalent to $147926.47 - or $59308.82 in case alternative prayer 1b is granted).

V. EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001 - Screenshot showing seizure of funds by DoJ/DHS

VI. REPRESENTATION STATEMENT​

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 8th day of November 2026.

 

[Talion77]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The defendant, Commonwealth of Redmont, has seized plaintiff's entire balance (as indicated by exhibit P-001 filed later in this post) seemingly without providing proper justification, in a way that clearly infringes on the enjoyment of their funds and plaintiff's constitutional rights (The Constitution, specifically Part V, Section 35, right 15 and 17).

Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order the Commonwealth to return the funds ($147696.08) until this case has been adjourned or until Commonwealth acts in a constitutionally-consistent manner to seize them. Plaintiff respectfully requests a swift ruling on this motion.

The Emergency Injunction is granted. The Commonwealth is ordered to return the funds to the Plaintiff posthaste.

@Superwoops

 

[Talion77]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General (@Superwoops) is hereby commanded to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 109.

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.

 

[Talion77]

The Emergency Injunction is granted. The Commonwealth is ordered to return the funds to the Plaintiff posthaste.

@Superwoops

Upon further review, the Court is concerned that the motion for an Emergency Injunction does not sufficiently establish why it is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why it is within 24 hours.

@OwnedBlock @End

 

[OwnedBlock]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Your Honor,
Denying someone the access to their entire balance, possibly as this matter takes weeks or months to go through the court system is irreparable harm, because the court would be denying the plaintiff access to invest the money, purchase property or perhaps start a business venture with it. With all due respect to the court, the amount is more than 100 thousand dollars and could surely be used in a more worthwhile manner than having it held by the Commonwealth during the time the matter is argued in Redmont courts.

 

[ameslap]

The Commonwealth is present.

 

[Superwoops]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Your Honor,
Denying someone the access to their entire balance, possibly as this matter takes weeks or months to go through the court system is irreparable harm, because the court would be denying the plaintiff access to invest the money, purchase property or perhaps start a business venture with it. With all due respect to the court, the amount is more than 100 thousand dollars and could surely be used in a more worthwhile manner than having it held by the Commonwealth during the time the matter is argued in Redmont courts.

If the Court would allow, the Commonwealth would like to respond to this brief and prove why precedent does not support granting such a motion.
Furthermore, I affirm that ameslap is assigned to this case and will be handling it moving forward.

 

[Talion77]

If the Court would allow, the Commonwealth would like to respond to this brief and prove why precedent does not support granting such a motion.
Furthermore, I affirm that ameslap is assigned to this case and will be handling it moving forward.

The Court usually does not permit responses to responses, however as the Commonwealth has not filed a brief on the matter yet, the Court will grant you 24 hours.

 

[Talion77]

The Commonwealth is present.View attachment 104592

You shall file your answer to complaint within 72 hours.

 

[OwnedBlock]

Motion

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

Your Honor,
as you have noted, permitting the Commonwealth to file such a brief would be a breach of procedure. Responses to responses are typically not permitted (Commonwealth of Redmont v. .SteelBirch6844 [2026] FCR 96, post #29).

In addition to this, the Commonwealth has now withheld all of the Plaintiff's personal funds for more than four days.

The EI seeks to mitigate the ongoing harm caused by the Cwth's failure to establish a case within a reasonable timeframe, particularly in circumstances where no charges have been laid. The plaintiff is no longer able to meet their property tax obligations, purchase food, and or operate their businesses effectively.

Allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a justification in response to a response, of which the rationale has not previously been disclosed to the plaintiff, would undermine procedural fairness and deny my client a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations raised.

If the Commonwealth is permitted to advance a justification for its actions, my clienmt must equally be afforded an opportunity to address the allegations or grounds for seizure. In these circumstances we are essentially engaging in the merits of the case. This would prolong the the harm that the EI seeks to prevent.

The EI serves to right an unsubstantiated and unconstitutional seizure of funding, which has taken place without charges laid. If the offense was so egregious then why has the Commonwealth taken so long to address the matter? Before this case being filed, it had told the plaintiff nothing in the way of justification for this action taken against them.

We respectfully request that the court progress the EI and hear the merits of the case in due process.

 

[Talion77]

Motion

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

Your Honor,
as you have noted, permitting the Commonwealth to file such a brief would be a breach of procedure. Responses to responses are typically not permitted (Commonwealth of Redmont v. .SteelBirch6844 [2026] FCR 96, post #29).

In addition to this, the Commonwealth has now withheld all of the Plaintiff's personal funds for more than four days.

The EI seeks to mitigate the ongoing harm caused by the Cwth's failure to establish a case within a reasonable timeframe, particularly in circumstances where no charges have been laid. The plaintiff is no longer able to meet their property tax obligations, purchase food, and or operate their businesses effectively.

Allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a justification in response to a response, of which the rationale has not previously been disclosed to the plaintiff, would undermine procedural fairness and deny my client a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations raised.

If the Commonwealth is permitted to advance a justification for its actions, my clienmt must equally be afforded an opportunity to address the allegations or grounds for seizure. In these circumstances we are essentially engaging in the merits of the case. This would prolong the the harm that the EI seeks to prevent.

The EI serves to right an unsubstantiated and unconstitutional seizure of funding, which has taken place without charges laid. If the offense was so egregious then why has the Commonwealth taken so long to address the matter? Before this case being filed, it had told the plaintiff nothing in the way of justification for this action taken against them.

We respectfully request that the court progress the EI and hear the merits of the case in due process.

Counsellor, as far as the Court is concerned, your motion is relying on false pretenses. To the courts, knowledge, the Plaintiff's personal funds have already been returned by the Government which has complied with the preliminary EI (see the spoiler).

Further, the rule that you may not respond to responses only applies to filings from parties, objections or motions for example. This was a response to an inquiry from the Court—as it is interested in hearing a counterargument, the motion to reconsider, insofar as to deny the response, is denied.

Spoiler

 

[OwnedBlock]

Your Honor @Talion77, I apologize, it was not my intent to deceive the court - I wasn't entirely aware of whether the government had returned the money pursuant to the EI or not. Upon seeing your screenshot and further review with my client, I can confirm it is so.

 

[Talion77]

I hereby warn Counsellor @OwnedBlock not to engage in any further attempts to communicate with the presiding judicial officer in this case without including the other party. Any further attempts WILL be punished severely.

Spoiler: Ex-Parte