Lawsuit: In Session YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76

[Franciscus]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

YeetGlazer (represented by MZ Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. PARTIES​

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

II. FACTS​

(Note: Except where stated otherwise, all times and dates in these facts are in Eastern Daylight Time, which is UTC-4.)

1. YeetGlazer is a realtor in the Commonwealth of Redmont (see: Exhibit P-034).
2. On 24 July 2025, YeetGlazer owned several plots, including but not limited to:
   1. Plot c477
   2. Plot i025
   3. Plot rh017
   4. Plot r018
   5. Plot r073
   6. Plot rh047
   7. Plot r054
   8. Plot c343
3. The plots enumerated in Fact No. 2(1-8) (collectively, the “Plots”) were reported in eviction reports (the “Reports”) by Department of Construction and Transport (“DCT”) Employee(s) for “inactivity” (see: Exhibit P-001).
4. In these Reports, the DCT stated that, to remedy the situation, the Plaintiff would “have seven days to meet the minimum 6-hour playtime requirement” and that, if the Plaintiff were “unable to meet this due to valid reasons, [the Plaintiff] may request a deferral via the deferral request (see: Exhibit P-001).
5. The Reports were made on July 24, 2025, between 11:39 A.M. and 11:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight time.
6. The Reports contained an “eviction date” of July 31, 2025.
7. DCT employee Dearev, in the threads containing the Reports, stated that the Government had been set as owner of the properties and that an auction would be required (see: Exhibit P-002).
8. Dearev issued these notices that the government had been set as owner at or before 2:42 P.M. on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 (see: Exhibit P-001, Exhibit P-002).
9. On July 30, 2025, YeetGlazer opened a ticket with the DCT on the Discord in order to contest his eviction, as he had gotten his playtime above 6 hours (see: Exhibit P-002).
10. After he opened the ticket, YeetGlazer was told that the plots had already been evicted (see: Exhibit P-002).
11. YeetGlazer told the DCT that it had not yet been seven days, and asked for his plots to be returned to him as he met the playtime requirement (see: Exhibit P-002).
12. After this, xEndeavour, the Secretary in charge of the DCT, stated that the plots had been evicted on July 31 and did not return the plots to YeetGlazer (see: Exhibit P-002).
13. Section 4(1) of the Property Standards Act states that the DCT “shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.”
14. To establish regulations of the transfer of plots sold at eviction auction, the Department of Construction and Transportation has created an “Evictions Policy”, which is available on the forums (see: Exhibit P-003).
15. According to the Evictions Policy, “Department employees and staff may process an eviction at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone” (see: Exhibit P-003).
16. Dearev, a department employee, himself evicted the plot, stating in the discord ticket that “I evicted him” (see: Exhibit P-002; see also Exhibit P-007).
17. Dearev lives in Brazil (see: Exhibit P-004).
18. In Brazil, the main timezone is UTC-3. Only 0.0016% of the people in Brazil live East of this timezone (such as in UTC-2; see: Exhibit P-005).
19. Dearev lives in a place where the timezone is not ahead of UTC-3 (see: Exhibits P-004, P-005, P-006).
20. At the time that Dearev evicted YeetGlazer from YeetGlazer’s Plots, it was not later than 4:00 P.M. on July 30 in Dearev’s timezone.
21. At the time that YeetGlazer opened the DCT ticket regarding the Reports, it was not later than 11:10 P.M. on July 30 in Dearev’s timezone.
22. Dearev processed the eviction of YeetGlazer from YeetGlazer’s Plots before 31 July, based on Dearev’s own timezone.
23. Yeetglazer is a member of the Galactic Empire of Redmont and has served in the Congress as a member of that political party (see: Exhibit P-008).
24. Dearev has previously described the Galactic Empire of Redmont as a “paramilitary extremist group” (see: Exhibit P-009).
25. Dearev, on behalf of GlobalCenter, had previously tried to purchase plot c343, but this attempt was refused by the Plaintiff (see: Exhibit P-010).
26. After plot c343 was placed at auction by MysticPhunky, Dearev placed multiple bids on the property with source of funds as "bank" (see Exhibit P-014).
27. In the Eviction Auction thread for plot c343, Dearev posted an image depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc", which contained depictions of various dyes. In particular, it depicted 144 green dye, 6 red dye, and 4 cyan dye (see: Exhibit P-014).
28. Dino Nuggie Bank ("DNB", in-game as "b : DNB"), a business run by AsexualDinosaur, produces notional banknotes that are composed of various dyes. (see: Exhibit P-016)
29. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are among the dyes used by DNB as banknotes (see: Exhibit P-016).
30. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are DNB notes.
31. Within the auction thread for c343, Dearev said "we can't afford this" and " i'm not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot" (see: Exhibit P-014).
32. Dearev, within the auction depicted in Exhibit P-014, intended to purchase c343 with corporate funds from GlobalCenter.
33. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, "Players wishing to re-purchase an old evicted plot through an auction must pay a repurchasing fee. This fee is is an additional 50% of their winning bid amount (see: Exhibit P-017).
34. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a so-called "fairness fee" was imposed on bidders by the DCT. This fee depended on the number of plots (excluding wild plots) an individual owned (see: Exhibit P-017).
35. Dearev noted a "levy" in his bids during the most recent auction for c343. This included a $12,500 levy on his bid at $50,000, which implies a 25% "fairness fee" for Dearev (see: Exhibit P-014).
36. While a 25% fee was imposed on Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a 50% fee was imposed on the Plaintiff's bids in the same auction.
37. Any bid price for the Plaintiff would have required the Plaintiff to commit more cash to the transaction that an equivalent bid would have for Dearev.
38. Person 1 being required to commit less cash than Person 2 in order to place the same nominal bid on a property (for example, due to differences in fees) is an advantage in bidding on that property.
39. Dearev, through powers given to him via his government job at the DCT, actioned the eviction of c343, knowing that c343 would be auctioned after it was evicted.
40. Dearev could reasonably have forseen that the Plaintiff would be disadvantaged to Dearev on a per-dollar basis when bidding in an auction for c343.
41. 26. After evicting Plot r054, the Commonwealth swiftly auctioned and sold it to a third party (see: Exhibits P-001 and Exhibit P-011).
42. On July 11, 2025, Dearev submitted an Apprentice Constructor application to the DCT (see: Exhibit P-026).
43. In that application, Dearev stated that he was most active "GMT-3 weekdays (3pm-9pm) generally" (see: Exhibit P-026).
44. xEndeavour read Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application (see: Exhibit P-026).
45. xEndeavour made two posts in Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application - one on 20 July 2025 and one on 24 July 2025 (see: Exhibit P-026).
46. In a Building Inspector Application Dearev posted in March 2025, Dearev also stated that he was most active "GMT-3 weekdays (3pm-9pm) generally" (see: Exhibit P-027).
47. In no fewer than 2 applications for jobs at the DCT, Dearev had given his times of activity in GMT-3.
48. After having read Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application, which includes Dearev as having given his time in GMT-3, xEndeavour stated in that "The department has acted completely legally, within policy, and how it always carries out evictions" with respect to the evictions of the Plots (see: Exhibits P-026, P-002).
49. xEndeavour stated that he made an "assumption" when the Plaintiff opened a ticket to contest the eviction and that xEndeavour did not "go and find where dearev lives" before answering the Plaintiff in the conversation depicted in P-002 (see: Exhibit D-015).
50. xEndeavour could have checked Dearev's Apprentice Constructor Application and/or Building Inspector Application for Dearev's timezone at any point during which the conversation depicted in Exhibit P-002 was ongoing.
51. xEndeavour, the DCT Secretary, acknowledges that the DCT does not provide any structural oversight of its Inspection Officers' actions (see: Exhibit D-014).
52. xEndeavour, as DCT Secretary, failed to exercise due care in not reversing the evictions of the Plots prior to the filing of this lawsuit, even after a Discord Ticket contesting early eviction was raised.
53. 42. 27. As a result of the evictions, the Plaintiff lacked access to the Plots at the time of the initial Complaint's filing. As a result of the evictions, the Plaintiff still lacks access to the Plots at the time of filing.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Violations of Constitutional Right Against Unreasonable Seizure​

The Defendant, through its Department of Construction and Transport (DCT) agency (and its agent Dearev), unlawfully seized the Plaintiff’s property in advance of the authorized date, in direct contravention of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Section 32(15) of the Commonwealth of Redmont’s Constitution guarantees that “[e]very citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. By evicting the Plaintiff’s plots on July 30, 2025 – before the eviction date of July 31 – the DCT effected an unreasonable and premature seizure of private property. The DCT’s own eviction procedures must respect constitutional protections against unjust takings. Indeed, current DCT Secretary xEndeavour has previously written (under penalty of perjury, no less) in FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1 that the standard eviction process (notice followed by eviction on or after the stated date) exists to ensure that “players are protected from unreasonable seizure in line with their constitutional right”.

Evicting the Plaintiff even one day early violated this fundamental right without due cause. The seizure was unwarranted, lacking any court order or statutory authority to bypass the seven-day grace period. As such, the Commonwealth’s actions constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights, mirroring the kind of unwarranted governmental taking explicitly prohibited by the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution’s Section 32(15). The Plaintiff was entitled to be free from such an early confiscation of his plots, and this Court should declare that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to an unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s property.

2. Violations of Constitutional Duty of Care​

In addition to straightforward constitutional violation of unreasonable seizure, the Complaint asserts the Commonwealth breached its duty of care to citizens. Redmont law recognizes that executive agencies owe a duty to act within the bounds of their constitutional and statutory obligations. As the Federal Court held in smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth [2024] FCR 103, “Every department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations.” And, as the ruling in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29 succinctly notes, when a duty of care "is not upheld, it is considered a breach, and the party who is obliged to uphold the duty can be liable for damages".

This duty required DCT officials to conduct evictions lawfully and honor citizens’ rights (including property and due process rights) during enforcement of government policies. By evicting the Plaintiff prior to the permissible date, the Defendant breached this duty and violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional guarantees. Namely: the early eviction directly infringed the Plaintiff’s property rights and expectation of due process, evidencing a disregard for constitutional limits. The Defendant’s failure to prevent this premature action – and failure to remedy it even after the Plaintiff’s ticket was timely filed – reflects a broader neglect of the duty of fairness and justice owed to citizens. The Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens were not met.

Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for breaching its constitutional duty of care, and the Plaintiff is entitled to relief for this violation.

3. Violations of Statutory Duty of Care​

Independently of constitutional mandates, the Defendant had a statutory and policy-based duty of care to follow the law and its own established procedures governing evictions. As noted in RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, “all laws set out by Congress can impose a duty” on the Commonwealth. When an agency fails to adhere to a legal standard, it breaches this duty, and the party who is obliged to uphold the duty can be held liable.

The authority behind DCT’s Evictions Policy is Property Standards Act 4(1), which states that “[t]he Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node”. This law allows the DCT to create a police regarding evictions, and imposes a very simple duty on the DCT: evictions carried out must be in accordance “in accordance with these laws and regulations”. In other words, when the DCT makes an evictions policy, the DCT itself must follow it.

The DCT’s evictions policy states that “Department employees and staff may process an eviction at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone.”. This policy created a clear rule to follow: do not evict before the eviction date as determined by the employee’s local time. The agent Dearev’s eviction of the Plaintiff’s plots on July 30 violated that rule, as it was still July 30 in Dearev’s Brazilian timezone when he processed the eviction. By acting before “on or after the eviction date,” the DCT agent failed to meet the minimum standard of care set by policy and guaranteed under the law..

4. Common Law Negligence​

Again, returning to RaiTheGuy v. Dept. of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, the Court elaborated that if a duty is created by statute “failing to follow the statute necessarily implies a breach, which is consistent with the common law” (emphasis mine). Here, the statutory duty (rooted in the Evictions Policy and the Property Standards Act empowering that policy) was plainly breached. This breach was not a mere technicality – it directly caused the unjust loss of Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff had successfully remedied his inactivity within the allowed period, meaning the DCT was obligated to refrain from evicting him on July 30. Its failure to perform that duty of care is negligence per se in light of this precedent. Consequently, the Commonwealth is answerable for the damages flowing from this breach of its statutory duty to act in accordance with laws and DCT regulations when executing evictions.

5. Loss of Enjoyment​

The unlawful eviction caused the Plaintiff significant loss of enjoyment, a harm for which Redmont law allows recovery. Under the Legal Damages Act, “Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont” is a recognized form of consequential damage – defined as situations where an “injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm”.

Here, the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the game and community life in Redmont was severely diminished by the eviction. The Plaintiff could no longer access or use several plots of land that he lawfully owned, including his residence and/or business plots, depriving him of the fruits of his in-game labor and investments. This sudden and premature ouster on July 30 caused distress and frustration: the Plaintiff was forced to spend time fighting to regain his own property rather than participating in the normal activities of Redmont. The eviction and its aftermath prevented the Plaintiff from building upon, trading, or otherwise enjoying his hard-earned plots during that period.

The Plaintiff here suffered a palpable loss of enjoyment. Even after meeting the activity requirement to keep his property, the Plaintiff was subject to the distress of seeing his property taken regardless, and the dread of knowing that the Commonwealth would do everything in its power to try to keep these properties from him (extending the Plaintiff's loss of enjoyment indefinitely) even after he did nothing wrong. The Legal Damages Act explicitly permits recovery for such intangible harms, provided they are shown by evidence or a “reasonable person” standard. The Plaintiff will testify (and can present witnesses) to how this incident made his experience of Redmont miserable during the relevant time – he was publicly humiliated, lost access to his plots, and feared losing them permanently. This Court should award consequential damages for loss of enjoyment to compensate the Plaintiff for the very real, if non-monetary, harm inflicted by the Defendant’s wrongful and illegal acts.

6. Humiliation​

The manner in which the eviction was conducted also inflicted humiliation upon the Plaintiff, warranting damages. Legal Damages Act §7(1) explicitly includes “Humiliation” as a form of consequential damage, defined as situations “in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.”

The Defendant’s actions and subsequent handling of the matter caused the Plaintiff to suffer disgrace and embarrassment in the community. Being evicted for “inactivity” suggests to onlookers that the Plaintiff neglected his holdings; doing so a day early (and then having officials falsely claim the eviction was proper) made the Plaintiff appear as if he was wrong when in fact he had complied with the rules. The Plaintiff raised his compliance in the DCT’s public Discord ticket (see: Evidence P-002), only to be met with a denial and effectively be called mistaken or untruthful about the timing. This dismissal in a DCT ticket, especially by a high-ranking official such as xEndeavour, would reasonably make the Plaintiff feel belittled and powerless.

Moreover, the Plaintiff’s eviction notices were publicly posted on the forums (as is standard), and the subsequent record shows the Government taking ownership of his plots prematurely. To any community members unaware of the behind-the-scenes timezone trickery, it may have looked as though the Plaintiff failed to log sufficient hours and lost his property accordingly – a potentially humiliating stigma for an active citizen. In truth, the Plaintiff had done everything required, yet he had to endure public loss of his property and effectively beg for its return.

The distress caused from this ordeal is actionable. Prior cases underscore that when the government violates a citizen’s rights, reputational harm and humiliation are not just ancillary effects but compensable damages. The Plaintiff’s standing in the community and his personal dignity were affronted by the implication that he was at fault and by the blatant unfairness of the situation. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks consequential damages for humiliation, in an amount the Court deems just, to account for the disgrace and loss of face he suffered due to the Defendant’s unlawful eviction and false narrative surrounding it.

7. Fraud​

The Defendant, through its agents, engaged in fraudulent conduct by misrepresenting the date and legality of the eviction in an attempt to conceal their wrongdoing. After the Plaintiff discovered the premature eviction, the DCT Secretary (xEndeavour) falsely asserted that “properties were evicted on 31 jul before [the Plaintiff] had enough playtime”, despite the reality that the eviction occurred on July 30 in Dearev's timezone and acknowledging that "policy is that the eviction date is actioned at any time in the actioning member’s timezone". This statement was a knowing falsehood regarding a material fact – the timing of the government’s seizure – and it was made to dissuade the Plaintiff from seeking return of his property. Under the Criminal Code Act, the crime of Fraud is defined as “knowingly or recklessly misrepresent[ing] or omit[ing] a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm”.

The misrepresentation by the DCT Secretary as to Dearev’s time zone, and the total omission by Dearev regarding his time zone in the Discord Ticket to correct xEndeavour's false statement, separately and together constitute intentional and material misrepresentation and omission: whether the eviction occurred before or after the authorized date determines its legality. The Commonwealth intended the Plaintiff to rely on this false claim (i.e. to believe the eviction was rightful and drop his challenge). The Plaintiff, in an attempt to regain control over this illegally seized plot, relied on the Commonwealth’s misrepresentations, and then made several bids in vain. In the end, the Commonwealth invalidated the Plaintiff’s bids for the property on tenuous grounds and instead sold the property to a third-party, causing actual damages to the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff will forever be barred from enjoying that property. because the Commonwealth lied to the Plaintiff about the appropriateness of its evictions.

The deceit thus proximately caused the Plaintiff additional damages (in the form of litigation costs, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment in a property now owned by a third party). As Criminal Code Act provisions make clear that “crimes may be used to seek damages” in a civil claim, the Plaintiff seeks relief in this Court for the damages caused by the Commonwealth’s misrepresentations.

In sum, the Defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation violated the law and directly injured the Plaintiff, warranting further compensatory and punitive damages.

8. Corruption​

The Plaintiff posits that premature eviction also amounts to Corruption as defined by Redmont’s criminal code. A government official commits corruption, under Criminal Code Act Part II, Section 1(a), by “us[ing] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage to the government (and possibly to any third parties awaiting the land’s auction) at the expense of the Plaintiff’s rights. This act was wholly inconsistent with the official duty of DCT staff to follow the Evictions Policy and uphold the law.

There are several ways in which these actions may have gained an unfair advantage for Dearev or for some other individual. It is established in the facts that Dearev has shown extreme hostility towards the GER, in which Dearev has branded the GER a “paramilitary extremist group”. It is also well-established that YeetGlazer is among the GER’s most public-facing members, having served in the Congress. It would be to Dearev’s advantage to see the GER’s most public-facing member crushed under the weight of the DCT’s evictions power. And Dearev had indeed previously expressed an interest in obtaining one of the very same plots he evicted: c343; evicting this plot would give Dearev an unfair advantage relative to the status quo ante in Dearev's ability to purchase this plot.

Even if the motive for the early eviction were for more mundane things, such as convenience or haste, the effect was to prefer the government’s administrative timeline over the citizen’s property rights – a classic abuse of power. In the absence of any valid reason to violate the policy, one must conclude the official acted ultra vires and for an improper purpose.

Such conduct meets the statutory criteria for corruption. In this case, the DCT’s flouting of the rules indicates bad faith or improper influence (for instance, perhaps there may have been an unofficial directive to clear plots early, or perhaps just personal impatience). The Plaintiff alleges that this wrongful eviction was not a mere mistake but a deliberate act inconsistent with lawful duty – essentially, a corrupt act. Using this Criminal Code violation as a basis for civil liability, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Commonwealth accountable for the corrupt practices of its agent. The claim of corruption underscores the egregious nature of the Defendant’s conduct and further justifies an award of punitive damages to deter such abuses of public office.

Spoiler: Expanded Thoughts

Legal standard​

Under the Criminal Code Act, a person commits Corruption when a government official “uses a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” The law prescribes a penalty of up to 250 penalty units ($25,000) and up to two months’ disqualification from public office. The Criminal Code Act notes that "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages", and the Plaintiff seeks damages arising from a Commonwealth official's (Dearev's) actions taken in their official capacity here (eviction of the plots early and subsequent instructions to auctioning individuals).

Application to the facts​

1. Use of government position. At all relevant times, Dearev was a DCT employee (specifically, he serves as inspector, inspection officer, and inspection manager; see: Exhibit P-021). In his official capacity, Dearev actioned the eviction of eight of the Plaintiff’s properties, including c343. The DCT’s Evictions Policy in effect at the time permits an eviction only “on or after the eviction date, based on [the employee’s] own timezone.” Yet the eviction was processed before the authorized date (while it was still July 30 in Brazil, where Dearev resides), contravening the policy he was duty-bound to follow.
2. Self-dealing intent tied to the eviction. In internal communications later posted as Exhibit P-018, MysticPhunky (the auction host) stated that “Dearev has been doing evictions a bit early” and that Dearev asked him “to auction a plot just for him to bid on it,” identifying one of the plots he evicted early. That statement was made directly to the Secretary (xEndeavour), who acknowledged reviewing the issue. This is relatively contemporaneous evidence that the early eviction and the auction were linked to Dearev’s personal bidding plans.
3. Unfair advantages created by both the eviction itself and in the auction Dearev sought to trigger.
   a) Before the eviction, Dearev had no lawful way to compel transfer of c343; acquisition depended entirely on the owner’s voluntary sale. By using his DCT-granted power to evict, Dearev transformed the Plaintiff's secure ownership into a compulsory public sale—a new, government-created acquisition channel—thereby positioning himself to forcibly gain control simply by outbidding the dispossessed owner. That shift from the status quo ante was both predictable and purposeful, and it existed even before any specific bidding conduct.
   b) The c343 auction used the DCT’s “Fairness Fee” schedule (0–9 plots: 0%; 10–14: 25%; 15–20: 50%; 20+: 75%). Dearev’s own bids expressly added a “levy,” reflecting a 25% fee for him; the Plaintiff, as prior owner, faced a 50% “previous owner” repurchase fee—meaning the Plaintiff had to commit substantially more cash for the same nominal bid than did Dearev.
   c) During that same auction, Dearev confirmed he was bidding corporate funds but “not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot,” demonstrating active participation and attempted financial positioning in the sale that followed his own eviction action.
   d) It is established in the facts that Dearev has shown extreme hostility towards the GER, in which Dearev has branded the GER a "paramilitary extremist group". It is also well-established that YeetGlazer is among the GER’s most public-facing members, having served in the Congress. While much of this claim discusses particular financial advantages, it would be to Dearev’s political advantage to see the GER’s most public-facing member crushed under the weight of the DCT’s evictions power.
4. Financial means and coordination. Dearev posted an image of “GlobalCenter’s bank acc” showing dye stacks that, per documents provided by DNB’s operator, correspond to DNB banknotes—i.e., liquid notes available to finance his bids. That public post from Dearev was made in the c343 auction thread.
5. Prior interest and motive. Before the eviction/auction, Dearev (on behalf of GlobalCenter) had already approached the Plaintiff seeking to purchase c343 privately and was declined—supporting motive to secure the plot by leveraging his official role.
6. Departmental authority to set policy (and the duty to obey it). The Property Standards Act authorizes the DCT to promulgate eviction regulations; once promulgated, the Department and its agents must conduct evictions in accordance with those regulations. Disregarding the “on or after the date, in the employee’s timezone” rule to advance a personal bidding opportunity is incompatible with official duty.

Conclusion​

By (i) using his DCT position to precipitate an early eviction contrary to policy, (ii) pressing for an auction tailored to his participation, and (iii) entering that auction with a structural fee advantage over the former owner that he could reasonably foresee, Dearev used a government position to gain an unfair advantage for himself, inconsistent with his official duty. That satisfies the elements of Corruption under the Criminal Code Act. As Criminal Code Act provisions make clear that “crimes may be used to seek damages” in a civil claim, this constitutes an actionable claim for relief. As the DCT asserted that Dearev's actions were legal, even when they had all the information necessary to know that the actions were illegal and even after the actions of Dearev to evict the Plots were contested, the DCT bears liability here.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff YeetGlazer respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following relief:

1. Declaratory Judgement: The Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this court that the DCT’s eviction of the Plaintiff’s plots was unlawful, unconstitutional, and void ab initio. The Plaintiff asks this Court to explicitly rule that the eviction executed on July 30, 2025 violated the Evictions Policy and the Plaintiff’s rights, and therefore had no legal effect. Such a declaratory judgment will clarify the parties’ rights and ensure the record reflects that the Government’s actions were illegal.
2. Injunctive Relief / Return of Property: The Plaintiff asks this Court to issue an order requiring the Commonwealth to return ownership of all wrongly-evicted plots to the Plaintiff immediately. Because the eviction was wrongful, the appropriate remedy is to restore the status quo ante by reinstating the Plaintiff as the rightful owner of each plot. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction compelling the Defendant to reverse any transfer of ownership or auction process initiated for his properties. This Court’s equitable powers permit it to undo the effects of the illegal eviction – just as wrongfully dispossessed tenants or owners are entitled to recover possession of their property.
3. Compensatory Damages: The Plaintiff asks for an award of compensatory damages in an amount to fully compensate the Plaintiff for all quantifiable losses suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions. This includes the value of any property or items lost due to the eviction, any lost profits or income from the plots during the period of wrongful possession, and any other monetary losses the Plaintiff can prove.
4. Consequential Damages: The Plaintiff asks for an award of consequential damages for the non-economic injuries inflicted, specifically including Loss of Enjoyment and Humiliation suffered by the Plaintiff. As detailed in Claims for Relief 4 and 5, the Plaintiff endured a diminished ability to enjoy the Redmont community and personal mortification as a result of the Defendant’s conduct. The Legal Damages Act expressly recognizes these intangible harms as compensable. These damages, while not easily reduced to a number, are capped by law except in cases when punitive damages are sought (c.f. Legal Damages Act §7(2)(b)). As the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in this case, and consequential damages are therefore not capped, the Plaintiff asks that the Court award $150,000 in humiliation damages and $150,000 in loss of enjoyment damages.
5. Punitive Damages: The Defendant’s actions were not mere negligence but willful and egregious violations of law – evincing reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and for the rule of law. Punitive damages are warranted, per Legal Damages Act §5(1)(a), “to punish [a defendant] for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.”
   
   The Commonwealth’s conduct in this case has been egregious and outrageous. Here, the Commonwealth (acting through DCT officials) engaged in a gross abuse of power by illegally evicting plots, then persisted in dishonesty to cover it up even when contested, and showed deep contempt for the Plaintiff throughout the whole process. This kind of conduct strikes at the heart of public trust in government and must be strongly dissuaded.
   
   How should the Commonwealth be dissuaded? Treble damages serve as a strong deterrent to future wrongful conduct and are called for in these heinous and outrageous actions by the Defendants; this Court has granted them in the past, such as in lucaaasserole v Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50. But, for some violations (such as abstract violations of rights), treble damages may be difficult to calculate, and further specification for a calculation of punitive damages is necessary. And, for damages that occurred as the result of criminal activities, the Federal Court has found it permissible for Plaintiffs to seek punitive damages equal to the amount of fines that would be collected in a criminal proceding (c.f. MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27, Section III(2)(E), par. 6).
   
   As such, the Plaintiff prays for Punitive Damages as follows:
   1. $280,000 in punitive damages for unreasonable seizure, in direct violation of the Plaintiff’s express constitutional rights against the same, equivalent to $35,000 for each of the 8 Plots unlawfully seized;
   2. $280,000 in punitive damages for violations of Constitutional Duty of Care, as laid out in the second Claim for Relief, equivalent to $35,000 for each of the 8 Plots unlawfully seized;
   3. $280,000 in punitive damages for violations of Statutory Duty of Care, as laid out in the third Claim for Relief, equivalent to $35,000 for each of the 8 Plots unlawfully seized;
   4. $300,000 in punitive damages for loss of enjoyment: treble damages resulting from the Commonwealth’s actions described in this Complaint and in this Case,;
   5. $300,000 in punitive damages for humiliation: treble damages resulting from the Commonwealth’s actions described in this Complaint and in this Case;
   6. $200,000 in punitive damages for Corruption, equivalent to the maximum monetary penalty for eight charges of Corruption (one for each plot illegally seized) as laid out under the Criminal Code Act;
   7. $80,000 in punitive damages for Fraud, equivalent to the maximum monetary penalty for eight charges of Fraud (one for each plot illegally seized) as laid out under the Criminal Code Act.
6. Legal Fees: An award of the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, as mandated by the Legal Damages Act. Section 9(1)(c) of the Act provides that “Legal fees shall be awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party in a case at a rate of the greater of $6,000 or 30% of the total value of the case.” Section 9(1)(c) of the Act provides that "In cases that reach a verdict, legal fees are awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party at a rate of 30% of the total value of the case except in situations outlined in § 9.(3)." The exceptions allow for a judge to diminish legal fees in cases of misconduct and incompetence of counsel, but specify that "n cases that reach a verdict, legal fees must not be awarded at a rate less than 10% of the value of the case in any court" and that "n Federal and Supreme Court cases where legal fees are awarded, they must not be awarded at a rate of less than $6,000."
   
   The Plaintiff prays for an award of legal fees equal to 30% of the total monetary relief obtained (or sought, if the Defendant prevails on some claims) in accordance with this provision.Given the complexity of this case and the egregious nature of the Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff’s counsel has and will have expended significant time and resources to vindicate the Plaintiff’s rights. Thirty percent of the recovery is a fair and statutorily-supported measure of legal fees, and should be ordered against the Defendant if it is found liable. This not only compensates the Plaintiff’s costs but also encourages capable advocacy in cases where citizens challenge governmental abuse.

By submitting this complaint, I affirm I understand the penalties for perjury and that this statement is truthful to the best of my knowledge.

DATED: This 1st day of August, 2025

V. WITNESSES​

1. Dearev
2. xEndeavour
3. YeetGlazer
4. SirDogeington
5. Lawanoesepr
6. MysticPhunky
7. AsexualDinosaur

VI. EXHIBITS​

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

1. • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/r054-jul-31-2025.29049/
   • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c477-jul-31-2025.29059/
   • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/i025-jul-31-2025.29057/
   • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/rh017-jul-31-2025.29056/
   • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/r018-jul-31-2025.29053/
   • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/r073-jul-31-2025.29051/
   • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/rh047-jul-31-2025.29050/
   • https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c343-jul-31-2025.29048/

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

See attached PDF “Exhibit P-002”.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Evictions Policy

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004

Attached PDF "Dearev Wiki Page"

Spoiler: Exhibit P-005

See attached PDF “Exhibit P-005”

Spoiler: Exhibit P-006

Spoiler: Exhibit P-007

Spoiler: Exhibit P-008

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-may-2025.25986/post-102826

Spoiler: Exhibit P-009

Spoiler: Exhibit P-010

Spoiler: Exhibit P-011

VII. PROOF OF RETAINER​

Spoiler: Proof of retainer

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

After seizing the properties from the Plaintiff, the Commonwealth has hurried to sell off several seized properties at auction. As a sale at auction may make recovery of a property by the Plaintiff difficult, and the loss of a property would deny the Plaintiff the ability to enjoy that property going forward, the Commonwealth's actions pose an immediate threat of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff.

For this reason, the Plaintiff asks that this court immediately freeze any auctions, sales, transfers, or any other transactions of the following properties for the duration of this case:

1. Plot c477
2. Plot i025
3. Plot rh017
4. Plot r018
5. Plot r073
6. Plot rh047
7. Plot r054
8. Plot c343

Should any plots be sold or transferred away from the government after 30 July and prior to a ruling on this injunction, the Plaintiff asks that the Court order that the sale or transfer be immediately unwound in its entirety and the property be held in escrow for the duration of this case.

 

[JunkCereal]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General, @gribble19, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76.

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.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Court agrees, given the evidence currently presented, that not granting the emergency injunction would cause harm to Plaintiff. Since this injunction is time sensitive, the Motion for Emergency Injunction is granted.

It is ordered that the Commonwealth keep possession of the following plots for the duration of this trial:

1. Plot c477
2. Plot i025
3. Plot rh017
4. Plot r018
5. Plot r073
6. Plot rh047
7. Plot r054
8. Plot c343

When the Commonwealth appears before the Court, they will be allowed to file a brief arguing against the Emergency Injunction if they deem it necessary.

 

[End]

Your honour, I will be representing the commonwealth moving forward until otherwise provided.

 

[ToadKing]

Your honour, I will be representing the commonwealth moving forward until otherwise provided.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour, the Plaintiff objects to Secretary xEndeavour's attempt to represent the Commonwealth in this matter.

In the ongoing case of Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78, the Judge stated:

Let it be further clarified that the Executive Standards Act gives the Department of Justice the power to "(a) Defending the national legal interest."

It does not matter if a department was named as the main defendant, they are apart of the national government and as such the DoJ is empowered to defend them.

Furthermore, Secretary xEndeavour, to the Plaintiff's knowledge, is not a member of the DOJ; they are not a Prosecutor (P-012).

Spoiler: P-012

The screenshot provided shows only a temporary authorisation from the President stating "i hereby temporarily authorise xEndeavour to represent his department in court". This purported authorisation:
1. Is explicitly temporary in nature
2. Cannot override statutory requirements for legal representation

No proper authorisation exists for a non-DOJ Secretary to represent the commonwealth in court. The Executive Standards Act specifically vests the power to "defend the national legal interest" in the Department of Justice, not in individual Cabinet Secretaries.

This situation is directly analogous to Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 13, where the case was delayed when the Attorney General resigned. In that case, the Deputy Attorney General requested: "that this case be put on hold until a new Attorney General can be chosen." The Supreme Court ultimately required proper prosecutorial representation before proceeding.

To allow this would set a dangerous precedent, permitting the President to bypass the DOJ's legislated role and allow any person to represent the government in court through executive fiat.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court reject Secretary xEndeavour's attempt to represent the Commonwealth and either:
1. Require proper DOJ representation as previously ordered by this Court; or
2. Delay proceedings until a qualified prosecutor can be assigned or a new Attorney General appointed.

The court should note that there are at least 3 alternative Prosecutors currently employed by the DOJ, who could take over this case. (P-013)

Spoiler: P-013

 

[JunkCereal]

@End, the objection raises significant concerns whether there is legal authority for what the executive branch is attempting to do in these two cases. Though the Court understands the situation the Commonwealth is currently in, this situation is not a reason to act in ways contrary to law. To extend you courtesy, the Court will allow you 48 hours to provide a brief demonstrating:
1. the legal justification for your actions;
2. that the Department of Justice is incapacitated to an extent demanding such actions; and
3. a reason why the trial can't be delayed until the problem with the DOJ is resolved.

If you need an extension for said brief, please request an extension before the deadline. Failure to submit this brief will prevent you from representing the Commonwealth in this case.

 

[End]

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's objection to my representation of the Commonwealth is against the fundamental principles of natural justice - the government has the right to be heard and to choose its representation. Not only that, but it completely undermines Presidential executive authority.

The Plaintiff is trying to argue that only the Department of Justice has the legal authority to represent the Commonwealth in court due to the Department of Justice being charged with the legal defence of the Commonwealth. There are a few issues with this argument:

Executive Power

s28 of the Constitution provides that Cabinet is a group of advisers to the President, consisting of Executive Officers, who collectively guide government decision-making and policy. It expressly states that Cabinet draws its executive authority through delegated Presidential executive authority.
A ruling in favour of this objection would effectively hold that the Dept. Justice can override the constitutional authority of the President to delegate representation in legal matters. The Executive Standards Act serves to provide statutory duties and responsibilities to Departments, but it cannot displace or limit the President’s executive powers as set out in the Constitution.

However, Let us accept, for argument's sake, the notion that the Dept. Justice is the only one who can represent the Commonwealth across the Executive:

Dept. Construction and Transport
The Department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has routinely contracted or bought infrastructure from outside the Department, some even at the President's direction.

Dept. Health
The Department is charged with the maintenance and upkeep of the national health system.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has a policy which allows for private healthcare.

Dept. Education
The Department is charged with maintaining a historical national archives to document and preserve national history.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department regularly contracts its work out to players external to the department.

Dept. Justice
The idea that the Department of Justice must be the only entity permitted to represent the Commonwealth, regardless of circumstance and presidential authorisation is inconsistent with both practice and principle.

Just as no department exclusively executes the duties it is responsible for, the Department of Justice is not different - especially when:

1. The President has authorised the representation of their executive;
2. The Attorney General is unavailable; and
3. The person delegated is a suitable and intimately aware of the functions of the Department as a respondent.
4. The Department has a direct interest in defending its own actions.
5. It would be unreasonable and unjust to bar the Secretary, especially one with judicial experience, from defending the Department at the request of the President.

Precedent
This is not the same situation as Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 13. That matter involved a prosecutorial action that could not proceed without a lawfully designated prosecutor. This case concerns a civil matter, and the comparisons do not compare to criminal prosecution.

No precedent prohibits Cabinet Secretaries from appearing in court when their own departments are the subject of litigation. If the Plaintiff’s argument were to be accepted, it would mean that Cabinet departments are legally powerless to defend their conduct. In fact, the ruling that the President cannot choose the Executive's representation may be against [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal which held that the respondent was not provided with the opportunity to represent themselves in a civil case (such as in this case, where the President is being denied the same on behalf of the Commonwealth).

Conclusion
The Plaintiff’s objection is a narrow and incorrect interpretation of the Executive Standards Act. The President’s authorisation is valid. The representation of a Department in a civil suit concerning its own conduct is within reason. The delegated representative is qualified.

I am qualified;

I am authourised; and

I am the most logical representative, noting I was the decision maker.

I respectfully submit that you deny the objection.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Motion

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

Legal Fees: An award of the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, as mandated by the Legal Damages Act. Section 9(1)(c) of the Act provides that “Legal fees shall be awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party in a case at a rate of the greater of $6,000 or 30% of the total value of the case.”

Upon re-reading the complaint, I realize that I had erroneously included language that has since been repealed and replaced. I apologize to the court for this drafting error.

I ask to strike the second sentence of the paragraph and insert the following in its place:

Section 9(1)(c) of the Act provides that "In cases that reach a verdict, legal fees are awarded to the legal representative of the prevailing party at a rate of 30% of the total value of the case except in situations outlined in § 9.(3)." The exceptions allow for a judge to diminish legal fees in cases of misconduct and incompetence of counsel, but specify that "n cases that reach a verdict, legal fees must not be awarded at a rate less than 10% of the value of the case in any court" and that "n Federal and Supreme Court cases where legal fees are awarded, they must not be awarded at a rate of less than $6,000."

 

[End]

 

[JunkCereal]

View attachment 59279

I will take this to mean that you are being hired by the DOJ as a prosecutor. You may represent the Commonwealth on the condition that you're hired as a prosecutor in the next 72 hours. If you are not hired by then, you will no longer be allowed to represent the Commonwealth.

You have 48 hours from the time of this post to provide an Answer to Complaint.

 

[JunkCereal]

Your Honor,

Motion

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



Upon re-reading the complaint, I realize that I had erroneously included language that has since been repealed and replaced. I apologize to the court for this drafting error.

I ask to strike the second sentence of the paragraph and insert the following in its place:

Granted.

 

[dearev]

I will take this to mean that you are being hired by the DOJ as a prosecutor. You may represent the Commonwealth on the condition that you're hired as a prosecutor in the next 72 hours. If you are not hired by then, you will no longer be allowed to represent the Commonwealth.

You have 48 hours from the time of this post to provide an Answer to Complaint.

Your honor, end has been hired as a special prosecutor to represent the commonwealth in this case;

 

[End]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General, @gribble19, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76.

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.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Court agrees, given the evidence currently presented, that not granting the emergency injunction would cause harm to Plaintiff. Since this injunction is time sensitive, the Motion for Emergency Injunction is granted.

It is ordered that the Commonwealth keep possession of the following plots for the duration of this trial:

1. Plot c477
2. Plot i025
3. Plot rh017
4. Plot r018
5. Plot r073
6. Plot rh047
7. Plot r054
8. Plot c343

When the Commonwealth appears before the Court, they will be allowed to file a brief arguing against the Emergency Injunction if they deem it necessary.

Your honour,

The commonwealth requests to release all plots from this injunction to be returned to the plaintiff.

The plot r054 was sold to a new owner on 02 Aug at 1800 AEST, two days prior to the injunction.

Noting the verbiage of ‘keep,’ we have kept all plots that were in our possession at the time. Noting intent of the injunction to prevent harm, we have not pursued to regain ownership of the asset already sold which may create more harm.

By returning the plots to the plaintiff, we resolve a significant portion of the prayers for relief.

 

[JunkCereal]

Your honour,

The commonwealth requests to release all plots from this injunction to be returned to the plaintiff.

The plot r054 was sold to a new owner on 02 Aug at 1800 AEST, two days prior to the injunction.

Noting the verbiage of ‘keep,’ we have kept all plots that were in our possession at the time. Noting intent of the injunction to prevent harm, we have not pursued to regain ownership of the asset already sold which may create more harm.

By returning the plots to the plaintiff, we resolve a significant portion of the prayers for relief.

The Court understands the situation with plot r054 and agrees with the choice to not reacquire it.

The request to return the remaining plots back to Plaintiff is granted.

 

[End]

Answer to Complaint

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

Yeetglazer
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that YeetGlazer is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on 24 July 2025 (25 Jul AEST), YeetGlazer owned several plots, including but not limited to:

Plot c477
Plot i025
Plot rh017
Plot r018
Plot r073
Plot rh047
Plot r054
Plot c343

3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the plots enumerated in Fact No. 2(1-8) (collectively, the “Plots”) were reported in eviction reports (the “Reports”) by Department of Construction and Transport (“DCT”) Employee(s) for “inactivity” (see: Exhibit P-001) on 24/25 Jul 25.

4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that in these Reports, the DCT stated that, to remedy the situation, the Plaintiff would “have seven days to meet the minimum 6-hour playtime requirement” and that, if the Plaintiff were “unable to meet this due to valid reasons, [the Plaintiff] may request a deferral via the deferral request (see: Exhibit P-001).

5. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Reports were made on July 24, 2025, between 11:39 A.M. and 11:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight time (1:39 - 1:51 A.M. AEST on July 25, 2025).

6. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Reports contained an “eviction date” of July 31, 2025.

7. The Defendant AFFIRMS that DCT employee Dearev, in the threads containing the Reports, stated that the Government had been set as owner of the properties and that an auction would be required (see: Exhibit P-002).

8. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Dearev issued these notices that the government had been set as owner at or before 2:42 P.M. on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 (4:42 A.M. AEST on Thursday, July 31, 2025) (see: Exhibit P-001, Exhibit P-002).

9. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on July 30, 2025 (July 31, 2025, 12:02:04 PM AEST), YeetGlazer opened a ticket with the DCT on the Discord in order to contest his eviction, as he had gotten his playtime above 6 hours (see: Exhibit P-002).

10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that after he opened the ticket, YeetGlazer was told that the plots had already been evicted (see: Exhibit P-002).

11.The Defendant AFFIRMS that YeetGlazer told the DCT that it had not yet been seven days, and asked for his plots to be returned to him as he met the playtime requirement (see: Exhibit P-002).

12. The Defendant AFFIRMS that after this, xEndeavour, the Secretary in charge of the DCT, stated that the plots had been evicted on July 31 and did not return the plots to YeetGlazer (see: Exhibit P-002).

13. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Section 4(1) of the Property Standards Act states that the DCT “shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.”

14. The Defendant AFFIRMS that to establish regulations of the transfer of plots sold at eviction auction, the Department of Construction and Transportation has created an “Evictions Policy”, which is available on the forums (see: Exhibit P-003).

15. The Defendant AFFIRMS that according to the Evictions Policy, “Department employees and staff may process an eviction at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone” (see: Exhibit P-003).

16. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Dearev, a department employee, himself evicted the plot, stating in the discord ticket that “I evicted him” (see: Exhibit P-002; see also Exhibit P-007).

17. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS that Dearev lives in Brazil (see: Exhibit P-004).

18. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS in Brazil, the main timezone is UTC-3. Only 0.0016% of the people in Brazil live East of this timezone (such as in UTC-2; see: Exhibit P-005).

19. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS that Dearev lives in a place where the timezone is not ahead of UTC-3 (see: Exhibits P-004, P-005, P-006).

20. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS that Dearev evicted YeetGlazer from YeetGlazer’s Plots, it was not later than 4:00 P.M. on July 30 in Dearev’s timezone.

20. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS that at the time that YeetGlazer opened the DCT ticket regarding the Reports, it was not later than 11:10 P.M. on July 30 in Dearev’s timezone.

21. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS that Dearev processed the eviction of YeetGlazer from YeetGlazer’s Plots before 31 July, based on Dearev’s own timezone.

22. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Yeetglazer is a member of the Galactic Empire of Redmont and has served in the Congress as a member of that political party (see: Exhibit P-008).

23. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS that Dearev has previously described the Galactic Empire of Redmont as a “paramilitary extremist group” (see: Exhibit P-009).

24. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS Dearev, on behalf of GlobalCenter, had previously tried to purchase plot c343, but this attempt was refused by the Plaintiff (see: Exhibit P-010).

25. The Defendant NEITHER DENIES OR AFFIRMS after evicting Plot r054, the Commonwealth swiftly auctioned and sold it to a third party (see: Exhibits P-001 and Exhibit P-011).

26. The Defendant AFFIRMS that as a result of the evictions, the Plaintiff still lacks access to the Plots at the time of filing.

II. DEFENCES
Your honour, the Defence respectfully submits that when the Plaintiff initially lodged their complaint with the DCT (P-002), their grievance concerned the eviction occurring less than exactly seven days from the time the plot was reported. The Department’s policy is that evictions may occur on the eviction date according to the evicting officer’s timezone, as I explained in our initial ticket response.

In this filing, the plaintiff raises a new and different argument that the eviction officer acted outside DCT policy by evicting the property approx. six hours too early according to their own timezone. Had this point been raised in the original ticket complaint, the Department would have reversed the eviction, as this is inconsistent with our Eviction Policy.

Acting in good faith, the Department has since:
1. Returned all affected plots currently in its possession;
2. Engaged the Plaintiff directly to negotiate a generous settlement concerning property R054, which had already been auctioned before the emergency injunction (to which the plaintiff has not been receptive); and
3. Ensured the Plaintiff has received the $26,000 in sale proceeds from the R054 auction.

Based on the arguments originally presented in the ticket, the eviction appeared correct. The newly introduced timezone-specific argument changes the situation and identifies that the eviction was premature.

Timezones
Timezones add a level of complexity that necessitates that the Department conducts evictions according to the evicting officer’s local time. In this instance, the Department did check the officer’s timezone. It was already noon 31 July AEST and reasonably assumed by the Secretary that the officer had acted with due regard to the Department's policies. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect.

Eviction Eligibility
The Plaintiff was eligible for eviction in many timezones well into the eviction date (exact timings to be confirmed via Plan analytics data). The Department does not accept that the Plaintiff was ineligible for eviction, rather only that the evicting officer acted approximately six hours prematurely in their own timezone. This was not an eviction a full day early, but a six-hour error.

Good Faith
Any suggestion of corruption or bad faith disregards the fact that this timezone-based argument is entirely new to this filing. The Department cannot be expected to know the exact timezone of every inspector as this is personal information and only shared at the inspector's wishes. In this case, the DCT Secretary acted on the reasonable belief that, at 12pm AEST, 31 July, the eviction had been conducted in accordance with policy.

The Department has now acted to remedy the situation now with the understanding of the plaintiff's case, returning properties and engaging out of court to negotiate compensation. The Plaintiff’s proposed damages are disproportionate given the circumstances and the matter could have been resolved without litigation had this information been disclosed earlier.

The Department’s current offer of $126,000 and the already returned plots (except R054), represents compensation approx. 5x the market value of the plot lost. The Plaintiff’s failure to engage us with this information prior to litigation, the exorbitant prayers for relief, and general disengagement with ADR has demonstrated that this is not about the plots, this is about maximising the damages from the Government for financial gain rather than righting a wrong.

DATED: This 10th day of August 2025

 

[JunkCereal]

Discovery shall now begin and will be originally set to end 72 hours from the time of this post. Extensions may be requested before the deadline, and upon agreement of both parties, Discovery can be ended early.

 

[End]

Requests for Production
1. Yeetglazer's Plan Analytics Calendar Profile for July/August (showing sessions and time on each date).

Witnesses
None at this stage.

Pending review of the plaintiff's requests and evidence, the defence will likely request a lesser discovery window.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntary), the Plaintiff submits the following evidence into the case record:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-014

C343 - Eviction Auction

Spoiler: Exhibit P-015

Spoiler: Exhibit P-MC1

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to compel The Commonwealth of Redmont to produce the following information based on the following reasons:

1. Any entries from Dearev in the #Commands channel on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server sent between 2:30 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025 and 3:00 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025, including full and complete timestamps and message metadata.
   1. Reason: These records should include the will establish the exact moments at which each property was evicted, and will allow for better precision in establishing the timeline.
2. Any entries in any discord ticket created or responded to by the Commonwealth or its agents on any DemocracyCraft-related server regarding the evictions described published before the submission of the initial complaint by the Plaintiff and in the 15 calendar days prior (inclusive, in Eastern Daylight Time);
   1. Reason: These records should include and will establish a substantial part of communications that the Commonwealth may have had internally regarding these evictions before this lawsuit was actually filed.
3. Any messages (including metadata and complete timestamps) sent on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server published on or after 15 July 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time) and the time of the defense's submission of their initial answer to complaint containing any of the following strings or substrings, capitalization ignored: "end"; "yg"; "nate"; "yeetg"; "dearev"; "mystic"; "early"; "mature"; "corrupt"; "time"; "Lawan"; "legal"; "law"; "licit"; "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343"; "tyson"; "mike"; "miek"; "ilt"; "tusk"; "ill"; "love"; "lcn"; "TON"; "GER"; "galac"; "empir"; "imperial".
   1. Reason: The Plaintiff seeks to discover internal DCT communications in the run-up to and aftermath from these evictions regarding (1) DCT staff regarding to the witnesses in this case; (2) the agents of the DCT who took action with respect to the auctions; (3) the plots themselves; (4) the Plaintiff (under any of his current or previous names or abbreviatiosn thereof; see Exhibit P-MC1); (5) discussions of early, premature, or untimely evictions; (6) discussions of unlawful, illegal, or corrupt activities; and (7) discussions as it pertains to the GER (of which the Plaintiff has been a prominent member). Each of these, the Plaintiff believes, may be quite relevant to this case and the allegations contained herein, as we want to firmly establish in the record what the Commonwealth knew and when it knew it.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel Dearev to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent or received by Dearev anywhere on Discord between 1 June 2025 and the time of this filing containing any of the following strings or substrings: "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343";
   1. Reason 1: This will allow discussion of the plots evicted by Dearev to be present in the Court record, even if not on a DemocracyCraft server.
   2. Reason 2: As for the timing: per Exhibit P-010, Dearev had expressed interest in plot c343 on June 4, 2025, and the Plaintiff seeks more information regarding this attempt to purchase, whether through internal discussions with other GlobalCenter staff (see also: exhibit P-014, where Dearev displays "GlobalCenter's bank acc[ount]" in an image within the auction thread for c343).
2. Any messages sent or received by Dearev anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. Reason: The Plaintiff alleges that Dearev's efforts were improper, and the Plaintiff seeks additional messages to better discover the motive of Dearev's actions or whether or not Dearev may have directly ordered or influenced others regarding these auctions in communications outside of the DCT discord.
3. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by Dearev anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if Dearev, who evicted the plots too early (see: Exhibit P-001, Exhibit P-015), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel MysticPhunky to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by MysticPhunky anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if MysticPhunky, who opened at least one eviction auction for these plots (see: Exhibit P-014), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel Lawanoesepr to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by Lawanoesepr anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if Lawanoesepr, who reported the plots for eviction (see: Exhibit P-001), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel Sir_Dogeington to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by Sir_Dogeington anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if Sir_Dogeington, who commented in the DCT ticket regarding whether or not the Plaintiff had sufficient playtime to avoid eviction (see: Exhibit P-002), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel xEndeavour to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by xEndeavour anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if xEndeavour, who denied in a discord ticket that the Plaintiff was evicted early (see: Exhibit P-002) and later admitted that the Plaintiff was evicted early following the filing of this suit (see: Exhibit P-015), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Discovery shall now begin and will be originally set to end 72 hours from the time of this post. Extensions may be requested before the deadline, and upon agreement of both parties, Discovery can be ended early.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to extend discovery by 72 hours for the following reasons:

1. Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), "The Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other that they must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability. ... Requests for Interrogatories must be made 72 hours prior to the end of discovery." Your Honor has set the discovery timeline at 72 hours, which makes interrogatories impossible to ask under the Court rules, but the Plaintiff would like to ask interrogatories of the Commonwealth.
2. The Plaintiff would like to have additional time to file additional discovery requests and amend its complaint as may be relevant after the Commonwealth and others submit the evidence the Plaintiff seeks to compel to the Court. 72 hours is quite short for the discovery requests to be responded to, the complaint amended, and further discovery to be requested.

 

[dearev]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntary), the Plaintiff submits the following evidence into the case record:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-014

C343 - Eviction AuctionView attachment 59421
View attachment 59422
View attachment 59423
View attachment 59424
View attachment 59425
View attachment 59426
View attachment 59427
View attachment 59428
View attachment 59429
View attachment 59430
View attachment 59431
View attachment 59432
View attachment 59433
View attachment 59434
View attachment 59435

Spoiler: Exhibit P-015

View attachment 59437
View attachment 59438
View attachment 59439
View attachment 59440
View attachment 59441
View attachment 59442
View attachment 59443

Spoiler: Exhibit P-MC1

View attachment 59436

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to compel The Commonwealth of Redmont to produce the following information based on the following reasons:

1. Any entries from Dearev in the #Commands channel on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server sent between 2:30 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025 and 3:00 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025, including full and complete timestamps and message metadata.
   1. Reason: These records should include the will establish the exact moments at which each property was evicted, and will allow for better precision in establishing the timeline.
2. Any entries in any discord ticket created or responded to by the Commonwealth or its agents on any DemocracyCraft-related server regarding the evictions described published before the submission of the initial complaint by the Plaintiff and in the 15 calendar days prior (inclusive, in Eastern Daylight Time);
   1. Reason: These records should include and will establish a substantial part of communications that the Commonwealth may have had internally regarding these evictions before this lawsuit was actually filed.
3. Any messages (including metadata and complete timestamps) sent on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server published on or after 15 July 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time) and the time of the defense's submission of their initial answer to complaint containing any of the following strings or substrings, capitalization ignored: "end"; "yg"; "nate"; "yeetg"; "dearev"; "mystic"; "early"; "mature"; "corrupt"; "time"; "Lawan"; "legal"; "law"; "licit"; "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343"; "tyson"; "mike"; "miek"; "ilt"; "tusk"; "ill"; "love"; "lcn"; "TON"; "GER"; "galac"; "empir"; "imperial".
   1. Reason: The Plaintiff seeks to discover internal DCT communications in the run-up to and aftermath from these evictions regarding (1) DCT staff regarding to the witnesses in this case; (2) the agents of the DCT who took action with respect to the auctions; (3) the plots themselves; (4) the Plaintiff (under any of his current or previous names or abbreviatiosn thereof; see Exhibit P-MC1); (5) discussions of early, premature, or untimely evictions; (6) discussions of unlawful, illegal, or corrupt activities; and (7) discussions as it pertains to the GER (of which the Plaintiff has been a prominent member). Each of these, the Plaintiff believes, may be quite relevant to this case and the allegations contained herein, as we want to firmly establish in the record what the Commonwealth knew and when it knew it.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel Dearev to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent or received by Dearev anywhere on Discord between 1 June 2025 and the time of this filing containing any of the following strings or substrings: "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343";
   1. Reason 1: This will allow discussion of the plots evicted by Dearev to be present in the Court record, even if not on a DemocracyCraft server.
   2. Reason 2: As for the timing: per Exhibit P-010, Dearev had expressed interest in plot c343 on June 4, 2025, and the Plaintiff seeks more information regarding this attempt to purchase, whether through internal discussions with other GlobalCenter staff (see also: exhibit P-014, where Dearev displays "GlobalCenter's bank acc[ount]" in an image within the auction thread for c343).
2. Any messages sent or received by Dearev anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. Reason: The Plaintiff alleges that Dearev's efforts were improper, and the Plaintiff seeks additional messages to better discover the motive of Dearev's actions or whether or not Dearev may have directly ordered or influenced others regarding these auctions in communications outside of the DCT discord.
3. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by Dearev anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if Dearev, who evicted the plots too early (see: Exhibit P-001, Exhibit P-015), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel MysticPhunky to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by MysticPhunky anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if MysticPhunky, who opened at least one eviction auction for these plots (see: Exhibit P-014), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel Lawanoesepr to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by Lawanoesepr anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if Lawanoesepr, who reported the plots for eviction (see: Exhibit P-001), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel Sir_Dogeington to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by Sir_Dogeington anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if Sir_Dogeington, who commented in the DCT ticket regarding whether or not the Plaintiff had sufficient playtime to avoid eviction (see: Exhibit P-002), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to personally compel xEndeavour to produce the following items for discovery, and for the following reasons:

1. Any messages (including timestamps and full metadata) sent to or received by xEndeavour anywhere on Discord between the time of 11:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on 24 July 2025 and the time of the filing of the Defense's initial Answer to Complaint that reference (directly or indirectly) or pertain to any eviction, auction, sale, or transfer of any property described in the Plaintiff's initial complaint.
   1. The Plaintiff seeks to discover if xEndeavour, who denied in a discord ticket that the Plaintiff was evicted early (see: Exhibit P-002) and later admitted that the Plaintiff was evicted early following the filing of this suit (see: Exhibit P-015), had reason to believe or otherwise knew that any evictions, auctions, sales, or transfers of any of the Plots were improper. The Plaintiff requests communications regarding these plots as such.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY



Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to extend discovery by 72 hours for the following reasons:

1. Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), "The Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other that they must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability. ... Requests for Interrogatories must be made 72 hours prior to the end of discovery." Your Honor has set the discovery timeline at 72 hours, which makes interrogatories impossible to ask under the Court rules, but the Plaintiff would like to ask interrogatories of the Commonwealth.
2. The Plaintiff would like to have additional time to file additional discovery requests and amend its complaint as may be relevant after the Commonwealth and others submit the evidence the Plaintiff seeks to compel to the Court. 72 hours is quite short for the discovery requests to be responded to, the complaint amended, and further discovery to be requested.

Your honor, The commonwealth requests a response.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

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

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Plaintiff files this brief to notify you of amendment to the Complaint. Following your acknowledgement of this message, the Plaintiff will amend the brief as follows:

1. Between facts 25 and 26 in the initial complaint, the following facts in italics shall be inserted and subsequent facts renumbered:
   • 26. After plot c343 was placed at auction by MysticPhunky, Dearev placed multiple bids on the property with source of funds as "bank" (see Exhibit P-014).
   • 27. In the Eviction Auction thread for plot c343, Dearev posted an image depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc", which contained depictions of various dyes. In particular, it depicted 144 green dye, 6 red dye, and 4 cyan dye (see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 28. Dino Nuggie Bank ("DNB", in-game as "b : DNB"), a business run by AsexualDinosaur, produces notional banknotes that are composed of various dyes. (see: Exhibit P-016)
   • 29. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are among the dyes used by DNB as banknotes (see: Exhibit P-016).
   • 30. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are DNB notes.
   • 31. Within the auction thread for c343, Dearev said "we can't afford this" and " i'm not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot" (see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 32. Dearev, witihin the auction depicted in Exhibit P-014, intended to purchase c343 with corporate funds from GlobalCenter.
   • 33. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, "Players wishing to re-purchase an old evicted plot through an auction must pay a repurchasing fee. This fee is is an additional 50% of their winning bid amount (see: Exhibit P-017).
   • 34. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a so-called "fairness fee" was imposed on bidders by the DCT. This fee depended on the number of plots (excluding wild plots) an individual owned (see: Exhibit P-017).
   • 35. Dearev noted a "levy" in his bids during the most recent auction for c343. This included a $12,500 levy on his bid at $50,000, which implies a 25% "fairness fee" for Dearev(see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 36. While a 25% fee was imposed on Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a 50% fee was imposed on the Plaintiff's bids in the same auction.
   • 37. Any bid price for the Plaintiff would have required the Plaintiff to commit more cash to the transaction that an equivalent bid would have for Dearev.
   • 38. Person 1 being required to commit less cash than Person 2 in order to place the same nominal bid on a property (for example, due to differences in fees) is an advantage in bidding on that property.
   • 39. Dearev, through powers given to him via his government job at the DCT, actioned the eviction of c343, knowing that c343 would be auctioned after it was evicted.
   • 40. Dearev could reasonably have forseen that the Plaintiff would be disadvantaged to Dearev on a per-dollar basis when bidding in an auction for c343.
2. The witness list is amended to include the additional individual:
   • AsexualDinosaur

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntary) the Plaintiff submits the following into the case record:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-016

Spoiler: Exhibit P-017

See attached PDF "Auction Policy".

 

[JunkCereal]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY



Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to extend discovery by 72 hours for the following reasons:

1. Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), "The Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other that they must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability. ... Requests for Interrogatories must be made 72 hours prior to the end of discovery." Your Honor has set the discovery timeline at 72 hours, which makes interrogatories impossible to ask under the Court rules, but the Plaintiff would like to ask interrogatories of the Commonwealth.
2. The Plaintiff would like to have additional time to file additional discovery requests and amend its complaint as may be relevant after the Commonwealth and others submit the evidence the Plaintiff seeks to compel to the Court. 72 hours is quite short for the discovery requests to be responded to, the complaint amended, and further discovery to be requested.

The Motion to Extend Discovery is granted. The new deadline for Discovery is set to end an additional 48 hours after the previous deadline. As Discovery progresses, additional time may be requested.

Your honor, The commonwealth requests a response.

You may do so. You have 36 hours. If you need more time, please request an extension.

Brief

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

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Plaintiff files this brief to notify you of amendment to the Complaint. Following your acknowledgement of this message, the Plaintiff will amend the brief as follows:

1. Between facts 25 and 26 in the initial complaint, the following facts in italics shall be inserted and subsequent facts renumbered:
   • 26. After plot c343 was placed at auction by MysticPhunky, Dearev placed multiple bids on the property with source of funds as "bank" (see Exhibit P-014).
   • 27. In the Eviction Auction thread for plot c343, Dearev posted an image depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc", which contained depictions of various dyes. In particular, it depicted 144 green dye, 6 red dye, and 4 cyan dye (see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 28. Dino Nuggie Bank ("DNB", in-game as "b : DNB"), a business run by AsexualDinosaur, produces notional banknotes that are composed of various dyes. (see: Exhibit P-016)
   • 29. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are among the dyes used by DNB as banknotes (see: Exhibit P-016).
   • 30. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are DNB notes.
   • 31. Within the auction thread for c343, Dearev said "we can't afford this" and " i'm not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot" (see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 32. Dearev, witihin the auction depicted in Exhibit P-014, intended to purchase c343 with corporate funds from GlobalCenter.
   • 33. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, "Players wishing to re-purchase an old evicted plot through an auction must pay a repurchasing fee. This fee is is an additional 50% of their winning bid amount (see: Exhibit P-017).
   • 34. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a so-called "fairness fee" was imposed on bidders by the DCT. This fee depended on the number of plots (excluding wild plots) an individual owned (see: Exhibit P-017).
   • 35. Dearev noted a "levy" in his bids during the most recent auction for c343. This included a $12,500 levy on his bid at $50,000, which implies a 25% "fairness fee" for Dearev(see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 36. While a 25% fee was imposed on Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a 50% fee was imposed on the Plaintiff's bids in the same auction.
   • 37. Any bid price for the Plaintiff would have required the Plaintiff to commit more cash to the transaction that an equivalent bid would have for Dearev.
   • 38. Person 1 being required to commit less cash than Person 2 in order to place the same nominal bid on a property (for example, due to differences in fees) is an advantage in bidding on that property.
   • 39. Dearev, through powers given to him via his government job at the DCT, actioned the eviction of c343, knowing that c343 would be auctioned after it was evicted.
   • 40. Dearev could reasonably have forseen that the Plaintiff would be disadvantaged to Dearev on a per-dollar basis when bidding in an auction for c343.
2. The witness list is amended to include the additional individual:
   • AsexualDinosaur

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntary) the Plaintiff submits the following into the case record:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-016

View attachment 59453
View attachment 59451

Spoiler: Exhibit P-017

See attached PDF "Auction Policy".

The amendment is acknowledged. Defendant has until the end of Discovery to amend their Answer.

 

[End]

Motion​

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to compel The Commonwealth of Redmont to produce the following information based on the following reasons:

1. Any entries from Dearev in the #Commands channel on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server sent between 2:30 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025 and 3:00 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025, including full and complete timestamps and message metadata.
   1. Reason: These records should include the will establish the exact moments at which each property was evicted, and will allow for better precision in establishing the timeline.
2. Any entries in any discord ticket created or responded to by the Commonwealth or its agents on any DemocracyCraft-related server regarding the evictions described published before the submission of the initial complaint by the Plaintiff and in the 15 calendar days prior (inclusive, in Eastern Daylight Time);
   1. Reason: These records should include and will establish a substantial part of communications that the Commonwealth may have had internally regarding these evictions before this lawsuit was actually filed.
3. Any messages (including metadata and complete timestamps) sent on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server published on or after 15 July 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time) and the time of the defense's submission of their initial answer to complaint containing any of the following strings or substrings, capitalization ignored: "end"; "yg"; "nate"; "yeetg"; "dearev"; "mystic"; "early"; "mature"; "corrupt"; "time"; "Lawan"; "legal"; "law"; "licit"; "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343"; "tyson"; "mike"; "miek"; "ilt"; "tusk"; "ill"; "love"; "lcn"; "TON"; "GER"; "galac"; "empir"; "imperial".
   1. Reason: The Plaintiff seeks to discover internal DCT communications in the run-up to and aftermath from these evictions regarding (1) DCT staff regarding to the witnesses in this case; (2) the agents of the DCT who took action with respect to the auctions; (3) the plots themselves; (4) the Plaintiff (under any of his current or previous names or abbreviatiosn thereof; see Exhibit P-MC1); (5) discussions of early, premature, or untimely evictions; (6) discussions of unlawful, illegal, or corrupt activities; and (7) discussions as it pertains to the GER (of which the Plaintiff has been a prominent member). Each of these, the Plaintiff believes, may be quite relevant to this case and the allegations contained herein, as we want to firmly establish in the record what the Commonwealth knew and when it knew it.

Objection

Relevance and Ambiguous

Your honour, the Commonwealth submits that:

1. The plots were evicted from the point in time that post was made in the eviction thread. The member's movements to the plot is not indicative of what time the plot was evicted. The eviction time is already present in evidence submitted.

2. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. I fail to see how another individual's ticket is relevant to this case.

3. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. The plaintiff has requested 35 terms for a period of a month, which would equate to 100s of screenshots.

The defence request that the plaintiff reduce their requests for production to 5 key themes that we can present to the best of our ability. If the plaintiff is allowed to request 1000s of pieces of evidence the commonwealth is going to need a significant amount of time added to discovery to accommodate the initial and follow up requests.

Objection

Ambiguous

The defence objects to all motions to compel raised by the plaintiff on the basis of being unreasonable, ambiguous, and far-reaching.

Evidence request should be far more specific than anywhere on discord over a month-long timeframe.

 

[End]

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

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Plaintiff files this brief to notify you of amendment to the Complaint. Following your acknowledgement of this message, the Plaintiff will amend the brief as follows:

1. Between facts 25 and 26 in the initial complaint, the following facts in italics shall be inserted and subsequent facts renumbered:
   • 26. After plot c343 was placed at auction by MysticPhunky, Dearev placed multiple bids on the property with source of funds as "bank" (see Exhibit P-014).
   • 27. In the Eviction Auction thread for plot c343, Dearev posted an image depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc", which contained depictions of various dyes. In particular, it depicted 144 green dye, 6 red dye, and 4 cyan dye (see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 28. Dino Nuggie Bank ("DNB", in-game as "b : DNB"), a business run by AsexualDinosaur, produces notional banknotes that are composed of various dyes. (see: Exhibit P-016)
   • 29. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are among the dyes used by DNB as banknotes (see: Exhibit P-016).
   • 30. Each of the dyes depicted in the image within Exhibit P-014 depicting "GlobalCenter's bank acc" are DNB notes.
   • 31. Within the auction thread for c343, Dearev said "we can't afford this" and " i'm not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot" (see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 32. Dearev, witihin the auction depicted in Exhibit P-014, intended to purchase c343 with corporate funds from GlobalCenter.
   • 33. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, "Players wishing to re-purchase an old evicted plot through an auction must pay a repurchasing fee. This fee is is an additional 50% of their winning bid amount (see: Exhibit P-017).
   • 34. Under the DCT's Auction Policy at the time of the Plaintiff's bids and Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a so-called "fairness fee" was imposed on bidders by the DCT. This fee depended on the number of plots (excluding wild plots) an individual owned (see: Exhibit P-017).
   • 35. Dearev noted a "levy" in his bids during the most recent auction for c343. This included a $12,500 levy on his bid at $50,000, which implies a 25% "fairness fee" for Dearev(see: Exhibit P-014).
   • 36. While a 25% fee was imposed on Dearev's bids in the most recent auction for c343, a 50% fee was imposed on the Plaintiff's bids in the same auction.
   • 37. Any bid price for the Plaintiff would have required the Plaintiff to commit more cash to the transaction that an equivalent bid would have for Dearev.
   • 38. Person 1 being required to commit less cash than Person 2 in order to place the same nominal bid on a property (for example, due to differences in fees) is an advantage in bidding on that property.
   • 39. Dearev, through powers given to him via his government job at the DCT, actioned the eviction of c343, knowing that c343 would be auctioned after it was evicted.
   • 40. Dearev could reasonably have forseen that the Plaintiff would be disadvantaged to Dearev on a per-dollar basis when bidding in an auction for c343.
2. The witness list is amended to include the additional individual:
   • AsexualDinosaur

Objection

Relevance

Your Honour, the Defence respectfully objects to the Plaintiff’s proposed amendment on the grounds that the newly raised facts and allegations pertain to the personal conduct of an individual, Dearev, in a private capacity.

These matters, specifically relating to corporate finances, auction bidding strategy, and alleged advantages in auction fees are not acts undertaken in the course of that individual’s official duties within the Department.

The Commonwealth’s legal representation extends only to actions carried out within the scope of an official role or as a direct consequence of the performance of those duties. The Plaintiff’s amendment seeks to draw the Commonwealth into a dispute arising from purely private commercial dealings, which is outside the jurisdictional and substantive scope of this proceeding (Yeetglazer's plots being evicted prior to the evicting officer's timezone).

Permitting such an amendment would unduly prejudice the Defence by requiring it to answer allegations unrelated to the Department’s functions, policies, or decision-making processes, thereby diverting judicial resources and expanding the case beyond its proper bounds.

For these reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court reject the proposed amendment and require the plaintiff to refile in a separate matter.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

Relevance

Your Honour, the Defence respectfully objects to the Plaintiff’s proposed amendment on the grounds that the newly raised facts and allegations pertain to the personal conduct of an individual, Dearev, in a private capacity.

These matters, specifically relating to corporate finances, auction bidding strategy, and alleged advantages in auction fees are not acts undertaken in the course of that individual’s official duties within the Department.

The Commonwealth’s legal representation extends only to actions carried out within the scope of an official role or as a direct consequence of the performance of those duties. The Plaintiff’s amendment seeks to draw the Commonwealth into a dispute arising from purely private commercial dealings, which is outside the jurisdictional and substantive scope of this proceeding (Yeetglazer's plots being evicted prior to the evicting officer's timezone).

Permitting such an amendment would unduly prejudice the Defence by requiring it to answer allegations unrelated to the Department’s functions, policies, or decision-making processes, thereby diverting judicial resources and expanding the case beyond its proper bounds.

For these reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court reject the proposed amendment and require the plaintiff to refile in a separate matter.

Response

Your Honor,

Dearev's eviction of the Plaintiff is the proximate cause of the injuries the Plaintiff suffered. The facts here are not a mere, unrelated dispute involving "purely private commercial dealings". They go right to the heart of the seventh prayer for relief: Corrpution.

In our initial Complaint, we wrote regarding the seventh Claim for Relief:

Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage to the government (and possibly to any third parties awaiting the land’s auction) at the expense of the Plaintiff’s rights. This act was wholly inconsistent with the official duty of DCT staff to follow the Evictions Policy and uphold the law.

The fact of the matter is the amendment speaks volumes towards the motive of Dearev when Dearev, acting in his capacity as a DCT employee, evicted the Plaintiff nearly half-a-day before Dearev was permitted to under policy. In order to demonstrate Corruption under the Criminal Code Act Part II Section 1, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that a DCT Employee "use[d] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty".

The facts describe exactly just how Dearev, acting as a DCT employee, used that government position to gain an unfair advantage for himself. They go to his decision-making process in choosing to evict the properties early. They are deeply relevant to the case, and this objection should be swiftly overruled.

Simply put, this case is about Dearev's eviction of the properties early. And Dearev's motives for misusing his post are firmly within its scope.

 

[End]

I will take this to mean that you are being hired by the DOJ as a prosecutor. You may represent the Commonwealth on the condition that you're hired as a prosecutor in the next 72 hours. If you are not hired by then, you will no longer be allowed to represent the Commonwealth.

You have 48 hours from the time of this post to provide an Answer to Complaint.

Your honour, I respectfully request that you formally rule on my response.

The Federal court ruled in [2025] FCR 78 on the same motion that:

Objection is denied. Just because someone is not employed by the DOJ does not mean that they can't be delegated or asked to represent the nation. The DOJ is charged with representing the national legal interest and if they believe that outsourcing counsel is in the best legal interest then they are entitled to do so.

Any other verdict would limit the Commonwealth's rights to select it's representation. While not pertinent to this case anymore, it sets a conflicting precedent and an unfavourable one at that for the Commonwealth.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's objection to my representation of the Commonwealth is against the fundamental principles of natural justice - the government has the right to be heard and to choose its representation. Not only that, but it completely undermines Presidential executive authority.

The Plaintiff is trying to argue that only the Department of Justice has the legal authority to represent the Commonwealth in court due to the Department of Justice being charged with the legal defence of the Commonwealth. There are a few issues with this argument:

Executive Power

s28 of the Constitution provides that Cabinet is a group of advisers to the President, consisting of Executive Officers, who collectively guide government decision-making and policy. It expressly states that Cabinet draws its executive authority through delegated Presidential executive authority.
A ruling in favour of this objection would effectively hold that the Dept. Justice can override the constitutional authority of the President to delegate representation in legal matters. The Executive Standards Act serves to provide statutory duties and responsibilities to Departments, but it cannot displace or limit the President’s executive powers as set out in the Constitution.

However, Let us accept, for argument's sake, the notion that the Dept. Justice is the only one who can represent the Commonwealth across the Executive:

Dept. Construction and Transport
The Department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has routinely contracted or bought infrastructure from outside the Department, some even at the President's direction.

Dept. Health
The Department is charged with the maintenance and upkeep of the national health system.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has a policy which allows for private healthcare.

Dept. Education
The Department is charged with maintaining a historical national archives to document and preserve national history.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department regularly contracts its work out to players external to the department.

Dept. Justice
The idea that the Department of Justice must be the only entity permitted to represent the Commonwealth, regardless of circumstance and presidential authorisation is inconsistent with both practice and principle.

Just as no department exclusively executes the duties it is responsible for, the Department of Justice is not different - especially when:

1. The President has authorised the representation of their executive;
2. The Attorney General is unavailable; and
3. The person delegated is a suitable and intimately aware of the functions of the Department as a respondent.
4. The Department has a direct interest in defending its own actions.
5. It would be unreasonable and unjust to bar the Secretary, especially one with judicial experience, from defending the Department at the request of the President.

Precedent
This is not the same situation as Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 13. That matter involved a prosecutorial action that could not proceed without a lawfully designated prosecutor. This case concerns a civil matter, and the comparisons do not compare to criminal prosecution.

No precedent prohibits Cabinet Secretaries from appearing in court when their own departments are the subject of litigation. If the Plaintiff’s argument were to be accepted, it would mean that Cabinet departments are legally powerless to defend their conduct. In fact, the ruling that the President cannot choose the Executive's representation may be against [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal which held that the respondent was not provided with the opportunity to represent themselves in a civil case (such as in this case, where the President is being denied the same on behalf of the Commonwealth).

Conclusion
The Plaintiff’s objection is a narrow and incorrect interpretation of the Executive Standards Act. The President’s authorisation is valid. The representation of a Department in a civil suit concerning its own conduct is within reason. The delegated representative is qualified.

I am qualified;

I am authourised; and

I am the most logical representative, noting I was the decision maker.

I respectfully submit that you deny the objection.

 

[End]

Your Honor,

Dearev's eviction of the Plaintiff is the proximate cause of the injuries the Plaintiff suffered. The facts here are not a mere, unrelated dispute involving "purely private commercial dealings". They go right to the heart of the seventh prayer for relief: Corrpution.

In our initial Complaint, we wrote regarding the seventh Claim for Relief:

The fact of the matter is the amendment speaks volumes towards the motive of Dearev when Dearev, acting in his capacity as a DCT employee, evicted the Plaintiff nearly half-a-day before Dearev was permitted to under policy. In order to demonstrate Corruption under the Criminal Code Act Part II Section 1, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that a DCT Employee "use[d] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty".

The facts describe exactly just how Dearev, acting as a DCT employee, used that government position to gain an unfair advantage for himself. They go to his decision-making process in choosing to evict the properties early. They are deeply relevant to the case, and this objection should be swiftly overruled.

Simply put, this case is about Dearev's eviction of the properties early. And Dearev's motives for misusing his post are firmly within its scope.

Response

If it may please the court, again, the Commonwealth should not be defending an employee acting outside of policy and law on a civil complaint of corruption.

If the plaintiff wishes to litigate against this member, then they should be raising the corruption claim separately and the claim for relief should be severed so that the member alleged can seek their own representation.

 

[Franciscus]

Response

If it may please the court, again, the Commonwealth should not be defending an employee acting outside of policy and law on a civil complaint of corruption.

If the plaintiff wishes to litigate against this member, then they should be raising the corruption claim separately and the claim for relief should be severed so that the member alleged can seek their own representation.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor,

The Objection Guide states that "Objections are on a per matter issue. One Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter". This does not entitle xEndeavour to an automatic response to the response to the objection: the whole idea behind this is to prevent lengthy chains in objections.

As xEndeavour has spoken out-of-turn and without permission, the Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour's quoted statement be stricken and xEndeavour be warned to avoid speaking out-of-turn going forward.

 

[End]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor,

The Objection Guide states that "Objections are on a per matter issue. One Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter". This does not entitle xEndeavour to an automatic response to the response to the objection: the whole idea behind this is to prevent lengthy chains in objections.

As xEndeavour has spoken out-of-turn and without permission, the Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour's quoted statement be stricken and xEndeavour be warned to avoid speaking out-of-turn going forward.

I withdraw my response.

 

[End]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS
Lack of Claim - the plaintiff has been offered adequate compensation by the commonwealth and is seeking to sue the commonwealth beyond this for actions that it is not liable for.

The Defendant respectfully moves for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against it, on the following grounds:

Fair and Reasonable Settlement Offer
The Commonwealth has extended an out-of-court settlement offer that is fair, reasonable, and more than adequate to address the alleged wrongs within the Commonwealth’s scope of responsibility. This offer includes:

• $100,000 – equivalent to five times the alleged market loss;
• A public apology – addressing any claimed humiliation; and
• The return of all properties in our care – restoring the Plaintiff to their original position (less the compensated property loss above).

This offer addresses the only aspect of the claim for which the Commonwealth bears any arguable liability — namely, the alleged premature eviction of the Plaintiff.

Matters Outside the Scope of Commonwealth Liability
The Plaintiff is now seeking to prolong proceedings by introducing allegations concerning the actions of an individual acting outside Department policy and beyond the scope of their official duties. The Commonwealth is not legally liable for alleged personal or corrupt actions undertaken in a private capacity.

Precedent and Right to Representation
The alleged individual retains the legal right, as affirmed in SCR 20’s Appeal, to choose their own representation. This further underscores that such claims are against the individual, not the Commonwealth as an entity.

Procedural Efficiency and Judicial Economy
Allowing the case to proceed against the Commonwealth on matters beyond its legal remit would unduly burden the Court and the Defence with issues unrelated to any actionable conduct of the Commonwealth.

Conclusion
The Commonwealth has acted in good faith to resolve the dispute within its sphere of responsibility. The Plaintiff’s attempts to extend liability to the Commonwealth for unrelated conduct are without merit. Accordingly, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that the Court:

• Dismiss the claims against the Commonwealth based on the reasonable settlement offer; and
• Permit the Plaintiff, if they wish, to pursue any unrelated claims directly against the individual(s) concerned in the appropriate forum.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against it, on the following grounds:

Fair and Reasonable Settlement Offer
The Commonwealth has extended an out-of-court settlement offer that is fair, reasonable, and more than adequate to address the alleged wrongs within the Commonwealth’s scope of responsibility. This offer includes:

• $100,000 – equivalent to five times the alleged market loss;
• A public apology – addressing any claimed humiliation; and
• The return of all properties in our care – restoring the Plaintiff to their original position (less the compensated property loss above).

This offer addresses the only aspect of the claim for which the Commonwealth bears any arguable liability — namely, the alleged premature eviction of the Plaintiff.

Matters Outside the Scope of Commonwealth Liability
The Plaintiff is now seeking to prolong proceedings by introducing allegations concerning the actions of an individual acting outside Department policy and beyond the scope of their official duties. The Commonwealth is not legally liable for alleged personal or corrupt actions undertaken in a private capacity.

Precedent and Right to Representation
The alleged individual retains the legal right, as affirmed in FCR 20’s Appeal, to choose their own representation. This further underscores that such claims are against the individual, not the Commonwealth as an entity.

Procedural Efficiency and Judicial Economy
Allowing the case to proceed against the Commonwealth on matters beyond its legal remit would unduly burden the Court and the Defence with issues unrelated to any actionable conduct of the Commonwealth.

Conclusion
The Commonwealth has acted in good faith to resolve the dispute within its sphere of responsibility. The Plaintiff’s attempts to extend liability to the Commonwealth for unrelated conduct are without merit. Accordingly, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that the Court:

• Dismiss the claims against the Commonwealth based on the reasonable settlement offer; and
• Permit the Plaintiff, if they wish, to pursue any unrelated claims directly against the individual(s) concerned in the appropriate forum.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests permission to respond to this motion.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant respectfully moves for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against it, on the following grounds:

Fair and Reasonable Settlement Offer
The Commonwealth has extended an out-of-court settlement offer that is fair, reasonable, and more than adequate to address the alleged wrongs within the Commonwealth’s scope of responsibility. This offer includes:

• $100,000 – equivalent to five times the alleged market loss;
• A public apology – addressing any claimed humiliation; and
• The return of all properties in our care – restoring the Plaintiff to their original position (less the compensated property loss above).

This offer addresses the only aspect of the claim for which the Commonwealth bears any arguable liability — namely, the alleged premature eviction of the Plaintiff.

Matters Outside the Scope of Commonwealth Liability
The Plaintiff is now seeking to prolong proceedings by introducing allegations concerning the actions of an individual acting outside Department policy and beyond the scope of their official duties. The Commonwealth is not legally liable for alleged personal or corrupt actions undertaken in a private capacity.

Precedent and Right to Representation
The alleged individual retains the legal right, as affirmed in FCR 20’s Appeal, to choose their own representation. This further underscores that such claims are against the individual, not the Commonwealth as an entity.

Procedural Efficiency and Judicial Economy
Allowing the case to proceed against the Commonwealth on matters beyond its legal remit would unduly burden the Court and the Defence with issues unrelated to any actionable conduct of the Commonwealth.

Conclusion
The Commonwealth has acted in good faith to resolve the dispute within its sphere of responsibility. The Plaintiff’s attempts to extend liability to the Commonwealth for unrelated conduct are without merit. Accordingly, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that the Court:

• Dismiss the claims against the Commonwealth based on the reasonable settlement offer; and
• Permit the Plaintiff, if they wish, to pursue any unrelated claims directly against the individual(s) concerned in the appropriate forum.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

Under Court Rule 5.1 (Rule Specification), "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under".

Upon reading the motion, the Plaintiff's counsel is not able to identify any particular rule under which the Commonwealth's counsel seeks dismissal. Indeed, no rule numbers are referenced, no links to portions of the Court Rules and Procedures are included, and it is not clear which particular rules the Commonwealth is seeking dismissal under.

The only possible direct reference to any rule or court precedent given by Commonwealth's counsel is a reference to "FCR 20’s Appeal", which is presented if it were a court case with relevance here. Because the year is not given, and no link is given, the Plaintiff searched through the Archives of the Supreme Court to try to find appeals for any "FCR 20". The Plaintiff could only fine one: the appeal of [2024] FCR 20 (original case), which was denied by the Supreme Court but doesn't appear to have any bearing on the matter here. (The other candidates, such as [2025] FCR 20 and [2022] FCR 20, were either not appealed or plainly irrelevant). While this ambiguously referenced appeal may exist, it doesn't appear to be relevant, and doesn't provide any reason that Rule 5.1 can be ignored.

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss should be stricken as breaching procedure.

In the event that this objection is not sustained, the Plaintiff would still seek permission to substantively respond.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

Relevance and Ambiguous

Your honour, the Commonwealth submits that:

1. The plots were evicted from the point in time that post was made in the eviction thread. The member's movements to the plot is not indicative of what time the plot was evicted. The eviction time is already present in evidence submitted.

2. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. I fail to see how another individual's ticket is relevant to this case.

3. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. The plaintiff has requested 35 terms for a period of a month, which would equate to 100s of screenshots.

The defence request that the plaintiff reduce their requests for production to 5 key themes that we can present to the best of our ability. If the plaintiff is allowed to request 1000s of pieces of evidence the commonwealth is going to need a significant amount of time added to discovery to accommodate the initial and follow up requests.

Objection

Ambiguous

The defence objects to all motions to compel raised by the plaintiff on the basis of being unreasonable, ambiguous, and far-reaching.

Evidence request should be far more specific than anywhere on discord over a month-long timeframe.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests 24 hours to draft a response to these objections.

 

[End]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS
Lack of Claim - the plaintiff has been offered adequate compensation by the commonwealth and is seeking to sue the commonwealth beyond this for actions that it is not liable for.

The Defendant respectfully moves for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against it, on the following grounds:

Fair and Reasonable Settlement Offer
The Commonwealth has extended an out-of-court settlement offer that is fair, reasonable, and more than adequate to address the alleged wrongs within the Commonwealth’s scope of responsibility. This offer includes:

• $100,000 – equivalent to five times the alleged market loss;
• A public apology – addressing any claimed humiliation; and
• The return of all properties in our care – restoring the Plaintiff to their original position (less the compensated property loss above).

This offer addresses the only aspect of the claim for which the Commonwealth bears any arguable liability — namely, the alleged premature eviction of the Plaintiff.

Matters Outside the Scope of Commonwealth Liability
The Plaintiff is now seeking to prolong proceedings by introducing allegations concerning the actions of an individual acting outside Department policy and beyond the scope of their official duties. The Commonwealth is not legally liable for alleged personal or corrupt actions undertaken in a private capacity.

Precedent and Right to Representation
The alleged individual retains the legal right, as affirmed in SCR 20’s Appeal, to choose their own representation. This further underscores that such claims are against the individual, not the Commonwealth as an entity.

Procedural Efficiency and Judicial Economy
Allowing the case to proceed against the Commonwealth on matters beyond its legal remit would unduly burden the Court and the Defence with issues unrelated to any actionable conduct of the Commonwealth.

Conclusion
The Commonwealth has acted in good faith to resolve the dispute within its sphere of responsibility. The Plaintiff’s attempts to extend liability to the Commonwealth for unrelated conduct are without merit. Accordingly, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that the Court:

• Dismiss the claims against the Commonwealth based on the reasonable settlement offer; and
• Permit the Plaintiff, if they wish, to pursue any unrelated claims directly against the individual(s) concerned in the appropriate forum.

Link and case number updated:

SCR 20’s Appeal

Addition of motion to dismiss rule:

Lack of Claim - the plaintiff has been offered adequate compensation by the commonwealth and is seeking to sue the commonwealth beyond this for actions that it is not liable for.

 

[JunkCereal]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests permission to respond to this motion.

Permission granted. You have 24 hours.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

Under Court Rule 5.1 (Rule Specification), "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under".

Upon reading the motion, the Plaintiff's counsel is not able to identify any particular rule under which the Commonwealth's counsel seeks dismissal. Indeed, no rule numbers are referenced, no links to portions of the Court Rules and Procedures are included, and it is not clear which particular rules the Commonwealth is seeking dismissal under.

The only possible direct reference to any rule or court precedent given by Commonwealth's counsel is a reference to "FCR 20’s Appeal", which is presented if it were a court case with relevance here. Because the year is not given, and no link is given, the Plaintiff searched through the Archives of the Supreme Court to try to find appeals for any "FCR 20". The Plaintiff could only fine one: the appeal of [2024] FCR 20 (original case), which was denied by the Supreme Court but doesn't appear to have any bearing on the matter here. (The other candidates, such as [2025] FCR 20 and [2022] FCR 20, were either not appealed or plainly irrelevant). While this ambiguously referenced appeal may exist, it doesn't appear to be relevant, and doesn't provide any reason that Rule 5.1 can be ignored.

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss should be stricken as breaching procedure.

In the event that this objection is not sustained, the Plaintiff would still seek permission to substantively respond.

Overruled, given that the motion was amended to address the issues. Likewise, you will have 24 hours to respond.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests 24 hours to draft a response to these objections.

Granted.

The objection of the amendment to the Complaint and a ruling on the issue of representation have not been unnoticed but are still under consideration. All time frames given in this post are from the time of this post.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following exhibit into discovery:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-018

Spoiler: Exhibit P-019

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Your honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatories to the Commonwealth:

1. Why did an official from the DCT choose to evict properties earlier than was permitted under the DCT’s eviction policy at the time?
2. Why did the DCT choose to send the Plots to auction even after the Plaintiff had opened a ticket with the DCT and stated in it that he had met the playtime requirement?
3. To the best of the Commonwealth’s knowledge, which plot does DCT Employee MysticPhunky refer to in the message depicted within Exhibit P-018 when Musticphunky writes “Dearev asked me to auction a plot just for him to bid on it”?
4. Yes or no: When Dearev evicted the Plots, was Dearev acting as an agent of the Commonwealth (including any department/executive agency thereof)?
5. To what extent does the DCT conduct regular compliance reviews that assess whether or not plots were evicted at the proper time under DCT policy?

 

[JunkCereal]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76
ORDER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH TO PROVIDE PROPER REPRESENTATION

An issue that came before the Court is whether the Secretary of Department of Construction and Transportation Secretary, End, has the legal authority to represent the Commonwealth in a case before the Court without being appointed as a prosecutor. The Court formally writes this order at the request of the Commonwealth to provide a basis for its decision.

I. DISCUSSION
A. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATION
The Constitution § 2(1) gives the power of creating rules and laws to Congress. Through this power, Congress charged the Department of Justice (DOJ) with “[d]efending the national legal interest.” Executive Standards Act § 8(1)(a). This provides the DOJ the authorization to represent the Commonwealth in court. Further, Congress stated in the Judicial Standards Act § 15 (Note: 15 - State Legal Representation) that “[t]he Commonwealth may appoint a prosecutor to represent the state in court in lieu of the Attorney General.” This explicitly states that prosecutors may represent the Commonwealth in the place of the Attorney General and reinforces that the duty belongs to the Attorney General, the head of the DOJ.

B. CONSTITUTION § 28(1)
The Constitution § 28(1) serves to provide a basis of authority for the cabinet, stating “[the c]abinet derives its authority through delegated Presidential executive authority.” This section states that the authority of the cabinet is derived from delegated presidential executive authority, not that the president is necessarily the sole - or even primary - entity responsible for delegating said authority.

The Constitution states that the executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively” and states that secretaries have the responsibility to “Impartially administer their department according to law.” See Constitution §§ 23, 29. The executive branch is granted the authority to create rules to the extent permitted to it by Congress in order to carry out its constitutional task of administering and enforcing the law.

C. EXCLUSION
The most compelling counter-argument is that the Executive Standards Act doesn’t explicitly exclude the possibility of outside members defending the Commonwealth. Note that the act doesn’t exclude anything from performing the functions of any of the departments. Accepting the lack of exclusion argument would allow us to conclude that anyone could do the work of the departments; it would allow us to decide that the Department of Homeland Security could do the work of the Department of Education or that the Department of State the work of the Department of Commerce. It would also allow us to conclude that citizens not employed - or contracted - by the Commonwealth could also take it upon themselves to do the work of the government. This is an absurd possibility that shouldn’t be the result of interpreting the law.

To avoid this absurdity, and to ensure the Judicial Standards Act § 15 doesn’t become unnecessary, the Court will employ the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of one thing excludes all others, to provide a basis for exclusion.

D. THE APPEAL
This situation differs from what occurred in Matthew100x v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 to give the Supreme Court reason to accept the case's appeal. In Matthew100x, the Complaint personally named a government officer as part of the accusation and then asked for that party to be personally fined and charged with a crime. Essentially, Matthew100x wasn’t just suing the government, as it claimed to be, but the government officer as well. To clarify, the Supreme Court was not saying that individuals may represent the Commonwealth in cases where the Commonwealth is being sued but rather that, if a party is sued personally, even if in conjunction with the Commonwealth, that party has a right to defend themself.

The case currently before the Court is not suing an individual in conjunction with the Commonwealth. They are not seeking punishment of an individual for their actions in an official capacity. This case is solely against the Commonwealth. This means that the basis for the declaration of a mistrial in Matthew100x does not apply here.

E. HARM
The Court would likely accept the argument that not allowing the defense would be unfairly detrimental if that were the case. As has been demonstrated in this case, it is not a high bar to expect someone to be hired as a prosecutor - even if temporarily - to represent the Commonwealth in the courts. The record reflects that it took 3 days for the Commonwealth’s counsel to be properly hired as a prosecutor. In the future, if the circumstances warrant it, the Court would be more than willing to grant a grace period for future Attorney Generals/Acting Attorney Generals to appoint special prosecutors, if they deem it necessary.

II. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
To summarize: 1.) There is legal authorization for the DOJ to represent the Commonwealth, 2.) there is no such authorization for allowing outside members to do the same, and 3.) this decision does not unnecessarily or overwhelmingly burden the Commonwealth in a way that could be considered harmful.

It is ordered that the Commonwealth be represented by the Attorney General or prosecutors of the DOJ before the courts.

 

[End]

Requests for Production
1. Yeetglazer's Plan Analytics Calendar Profile for July/August (showing sessions and time on each date).

Witnesses
None at this stage.

Pending review of the plaintiff's requests and evidence, the defence will likely request a lesser discovery window.

Your honour, I request that you compel the Plaintiff to provide the requests for production so that we can answer their questions during discovery.

The request for production was made 48 hours ago.

Noting the amount before the court for decision, I believe it may be necessary to extend Discovery further .

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour, I request that you compel the Plaintiff to provide the requests for production so that we can answer their questions during discovery.

The request for production was made 48 hours ago.

Noting the amount before the court for decision, I believe it may be necessary to extend Discovery further .

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff opposes this request under Rule 4.7. The only reason this could be relevant would be to establish playtime amounts, but ample evidence speaking to this has been provided via screenshots and statements from contemporaneous conversations involving Commonwealth officials. As the relevant fact has already been affirmed in the Commonwealth’s answer to complaint, the Plaintiff does not see how this would add anything to the case, and opposes it as unnecessary.

 

[End]

The commonwealth has asked for one piece of evidence in this case - playtime and session data.

This case which completely hinges on playtime and when exactly it was achieved over what period.

The commonwealth requests this information to be able to accurately respond to the question of why the plot was evicted.

I suspect that the plaintiff only reached the activity requirement late on their eviction day, which would have influenced an inspector evicting them during the day.

 

[Franciscus]

The commonwealth has asked for one piece of evidence in this case - playtime and session data.

This case which completely hinges on playtime and when exactly it was achieved over what period.

The commonwealth requests this information to be able to accurately respond to the question of why the plot was evicted.

I suspect that the plaintiff only reached the activity requirement late on their eviction day, which would have influenced an inspector evicting them during the day.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

Once again, xEndeavour has chosen to speak out-of-turn when not permitted by the rules. Rule 4.7 is clear: one party “may move to request documents, messages, or screenshots from the opposing party” and the other party may simply oppose it. This does not entitle xEndeavour to an automatic response to a mere statement opposition, just as xEndeavour may not automatically assume permission to substantially respond to briefs, discovery submissions, questions asked of third-party witnesses, and more.

While, xEndeavour may request permission to respond from Your Honor, he has not done so here. As xEndeavour has spoken out-of-turn and without permission (again), the Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour's quoted statement be stricken and xEndeavour be finally warned to avoid speaking out-of-turn going forward.

 

[JunkCereal]

Your honour, I request that you compel the Plaintiff to provide the requests for production so that we can answer their questions during discovery.

The request for production was made 48 hours ago.

Noting the amount before the court for decision, I believe it may be necessary to extend Discovery further .

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff opposes this request under Rule 4.7. The only reason this could be relevant would be to establish playtime amounts, but ample evidence speaking to this has been provided via screenshots and statements from contemporaneous conversations involving Commonwealth officials. As the relevant fact has already been affirmed in the Commonwealth’s answer to complaint, the Plaintiff does not see how this would add anything to the case, and opposes it as unnecessary.

The commonwealth has asked for one piece of evidence in this case - playtime and session data.

This case which completely hinges on playtime and when exactly it was achieved over what period.

The commonwealth requests this information to be able to accurately respond to the question of why the plot was evicted.

I suspect that the plaintiff only reached the activity requirement late on their eviction day, which would have influenced an inspector evicting them during the day.

Noting Plaintiff's remarks, the Court grants the motion to compel.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

Once again, xEndeavour has chosen to speak out-of-turn when not permitted by the rules. Rule 4.7 is clear: one party “may move to request documents, messages, or screenshots from the opposing party” and the other party may simply oppose it. This does not entitle xEndeavour to an automatic response to a mere statement opposition, just as xEndeavour may not automatically assume permission to substantially respond to briefs, discovery submissions, questions asked of third-party witnesses, and more.

While, xEndeavour may request permission to respond from Your Honor, he has not done so here. As xEndeavour has spoken out-of-turn and without permission (again), the Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour's quoted statement be stricken and xEndeavour be finally warned to avoid speaking out-of-turn going forward.

Sustained. The procedural issue goes a bit back. Requests to compel should be made in motions. If the original request was made in a motion to compel, Plaintiff would have provided a response, then the Court would have asked Defendant for the reason for their request. The Court understands the reply anticipating the Court's question, but it wasn't correct. The Court won't grant the request to strike the comments, and this will serve as the warning.

 

[Franciscus]

Noting Plaintiff's remarks, the Court grants the motion to compel.

Pursuant to this ruling, the Plaintiff submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-AN1

Your Honor: This covers the whole month of July and the beginning of August, which I understand to be the intent of the ruling. Please let me know if further details or additional dates are required under Your Honor’s ruling, so that I can ask my client to fetch them.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff enters into Discovery the following exhibit:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-020

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS
Lack of Claim - the plaintiff has been offered adequate compensation by the commonwealth and is seeking to sue the commonwealth beyond this for actions that it is not liable for.

The Defendant respectfully moves for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against it, on the following grounds:

Fair and Reasonable Settlement Offer
The Commonwealth has extended an out-of-court settlement offer that is fair, reasonable, and more than adequate to address the alleged wrongs within the Commonwealth’s scope of responsibility. This offer includes:

• $100,000 – equivalent to five times the alleged market loss;
• A public apology – addressing any claimed humiliation; and
• The return of all properties in our care – restoring the Plaintiff to their original position (less the compensated property loss above).

This offer addresses the only aspect of the claim for which the Commonwealth bears any arguable liability — namely, the alleged premature eviction of the Plaintiff.

Matters Outside the Scope of Commonwealth Liability
The Plaintiff is now seeking to prolong proceedings by introducing allegations concerning the actions of an individual acting outside Department policy and beyond the scope of their official duties. The Commonwealth is not legally liable for alleged personal or corrupt actions undertaken in a private capacity.

Precedent and Right to Representation
The alleged individual retains the legal right, as affirmed in SCR 20’s Appeal, to choose their own representation. This further underscores that such claims are against the individual, not the Commonwealth as an entity.

Procedural Efficiency and Judicial Economy
Allowing the case to proceed against the Commonwealth on matters beyond its legal remit would unduly burden the Court and the Defence with issues unrelated to any actionable conduct of the Commonwealth.

Conclusion
The Commonwealth has acted in good faith to resolve the dispute within its sphere of responsibility. The Plaintiff’s attempts to extend liability to the Commonwealth for unrelated conduct are without merit. Accordingly, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that the Court:

• Dismiss the claims against the Commonwealth based on the reasonable settlement offer; and
• Permit the Plaintiff, if they wish, to pursue any unrelated claims directly against the individual(s) concerned in the appropriate forum.

Your Honor:

Response

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

The Plaintiff urges the Court that the Motion be denied because (1) it relies on grounds that are not recognized bases for dismissal, (2) the Complaint plainly states multiple actionable claims supported by facts and controlling precedent, and (3) nothing about the Commonwealth’s unaccepted settlement offer moots the live controversy or supplies complete relief.

I. Introduction​

xEndeavour’s filing leans on three main points: (i) the Commonwealth made a so-called "fair and reasonable settlement offer," (ii) some allegations concern "an individual acting outside Department policy," and (iii) "judicial economy." None of those is a Rule 5 ground. If you read the exhaustive Rule 5 list, you will quickly note that "We made a settlement offer" and "judicial economy" are not on it.

After Plaintiff objected, xEndeavour edited in "Lack of Claim," but the body of the motion still argues settlement/admissibility/scope— not that the Complaint fails to state a claim or lacks evidence to support a charge.

Rule 5.5 lets a court toss a case only if the pleadings do not state a claim or if a claim has “insufficient evidence.” It is not a license to weigh our exhibits against baseless defense spin. We’ve pled multiple, independently cognizable claims and backed them with the Commonwealth’s own documents and admissions. At this stage, the question is whether our Complaint and discovery submissions plausibly allege violations supported by record evidence. They do—many times over.

II. The Complaint states claims that are plausible on their face.​

Aside from consequential damages from unlawful acts, the Complaint as is (or, as the Plaintiff will to amend it in the case of corruption) states (or will state) claims around the following:

A. Unreasonable seizure (Constitution §32(15))​

We plead that the DCT seized plots before the allowable date, violating the constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable seizure. That is a classic, justiciable claim under the Constitution. BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 88 confirms that eviction practices out of step with due process can be unconstitutional, with equitable relief and damages available.

B. Constitutional duty of care​

Redmont recognizes a duty of care owed by executive departments to uphold constitutional obligations. smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth [2024] FCR 103 says exactly that, and later cases cite it for this proposition. Our pleading fits that framework.

C. Statutory/policy duty of care​

Congress can impose enforceable duties on departments; breaching those duties is actionable. RaiTheGuy v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29 explains this and applies a duty–breach–damages framework for negligence. Here the Property Standards Act §4(1) authorizes the DCT to set eviction regulations and requires evictions be done in accordance with them. The Evictions Policy (see: exhibit P-003) states an eviction may be processed “on or after the eviction date, based on [the officer’s] own timezone.” That is a clear statutory/policy duty, and our facts allege it was breached.

D. Fraud/corruption (civil recovery for criminal conduct).​

We plead misrepresentations about the timing and legality of the eviction intended to deter challenge and cause further loss. Whether the conduct satisfies fraud/corruption elements is a merits question, not a Rule 5.5 dismissal issue—especially given the contemporaneous ticket communications and timeline already in the record.

Indeed, the record plausibly alleges corruption and self-dealing around c343—far more than enough to survive Rule 5.5:

1. Self-interested bidding immediately after the auction began. After c343 was placed at auction, Dearev started bidding, repeatedly noting “bank” as the source of funds (P-014). He posted “GlobalCenter’s bank acc” showing dye balances (P-014)—the same dye denominations used by Dino Nuggie Bank as notional banknotes (P-016). He also wrote, “we can’t afford this” and “i’m not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot”. That is a DCT official (unlawfully) evicting and then trying to buy the evicted plot for his corporate vehicle.
2. Prior attempt to buy from Plaintiff. Two months earlier, GlobalCenter tried to buy c343 directly from the Plaintiff; he refused (P-010). The eviction followed, then the bid to acquire the same plot at auction. Draw your own line; the dots are already connected.
3. Disparate fee burdens that advantaged Dearev over the former owner. Under the DCT’s Auction Policy (P-017), a “fairness fee” scales by real estate portfolio size, and previous owners must also pay a 50% repurchase fee. In the c343 auction, Dearev quoted an implicit 25% fee (e.g., “12,500 levy” at a $50,000 bid) (P-014). Plaintiff, as previous owner, faced the repurchase fee—meaning the same nominal bid cost the former owner substantially more in cash than it cost Dearev. That asymmetry is not academic; it bends the playing field toward the official who initiated the eviction.
4. Documented animus. Dearev publicly described Plaintiff’s political party (GER) as a “paramilitary extremist group,” signaling bias (see: P-009). Bias, an unlawful eviction, and self-interested bidding are not just smoke; they’re a five-alarm fire.

The Commonwealth is Liable for its Agent's Actions. The motion insists allegations about “outside Department policy and beyond the scope of their official duties” are not chargeable to the Commonwealth. But the operative act here—evicting Plaintiff’s plots—was done by a DCT agent using DCT authority. Whether that agent had a conflicting personal motive is relevant to Plaintiff’s pleaded Corruption theory and aggravation for damages, and it does not convert the official eviction into a “private” act. The facts concerning Dearev go straight to the motive of the DCT's agent who acted in his official capacity when evicting the plot. Namely, it is classic self-dealing: using state power in one's official capacity to dispossess the Plaintiff, then leveraging the auction in a vain attempt to acquire the plot from right out under the Plaintiff's nose.

The Criminal Code defines Corruption as using “a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another,” which is precisely why Plaintiff amended to add motive and advantage facts. That is an admissibility/relevance debate for discovery and trial— not a basis to dismiss the complaint outright. Rule 3.3 explicitly allows amendment during discovery, and the Plaintiff has sought (and will seek) to use this here to expand claims throughout discovery.

---

Taken together, these allegations easily clear Rule 5.5. They plausibly show abuse of public office for private advantage and a tainted auction process. Discovery will fill in the gaps; dismissal would bury them.

III. The record already supplies evidence; any “insufficient evidence” argument fails​

Rule 5.5 also allows dismissal where there is insufficient evidence—but that prong is used when a filer has almost nothing, not when, as here, the record contains policy text and admissions. The Commonwealth’s Answer itself affirms the governing rule—evictions occur “on or after the eviction date, based on [the officer’s] own timezone”—and acknowledges the eviction timing dispute (calling it a “six-hour” error by the officer). Those admissions alone put the breach question beyond Rule 5.5 and into merits.

IV. The Commonwealth’s quick-pay settlement pitch underscores liability—not “lack of claim.”​

When Plaintiff filed suit and obtained an emergency injunction, the Secretary promptly proposed to return the plots and add $50,000 (later raised to $100,000) if Plaintiff would drop the case (P-015, 59438). The Court already recognized the risk of irreparable harm and froze transactions in its emergency injunction. Against that backdrop, the settlement overture reads like an admission that the eviction and aftermath were indefensible. It is certainly not evidence of "no claim"; it is moreso evidence that the Commonwealth is seeking to avoid harsh civil punishments as a result of its agents' unlawful actions.

Conclusion​

This case is not about a harmless timing mistake; it’s about a DCT official pulling a government lever early and then trying to buy the spoils—while his Department looked the other way until litigation even after the Plaintiff reached out. Our pleadings and exhibits state claims several times over. The Court should deny the Commonwealth’s Rule 5.5 motion and proceed to the merits.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

Ambiguous

The defence objects to all motions to compel raised by the plaintiff on the basis of being unreasonable, ambiguous, and far-reaching.

Evidence request should be far more specific than anywhere on discord over a month-long timeframe.

Response

Per the Objections Guide, an objection of "Ambiguous" may be raised "[w]hen a question is unclear or imprecise, making it difficult for the witness to answer accurately".

The requests are precise. In the opinion of the Plaintiff, they specify - some in extremely painful detail - exactly what is required and are clear. As such, the requests are plainly not ambiguous.

For these reasons, the objection does not apply here, and should be overruled.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

Relevance and Ambiguous

Your honour, the Commonwealth submits that:

1. The plots were evicted from the point in time that post was made in the eviction thread. The member's movements to the plot is not indicative of what time the plot was evicted. The eviction time is already present in evidence submitted.

2. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. I fail to see how another individual's ticket is relevant to this case.

3. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. The plaintiff has requested 35 terms for a period of a month, which would equate to 100s of screenshots.

The defence request that the plaintiff reduce their requests for production to 5 key themes that we can present to the best of our ability. If the plaintiff is allowed to request 1000s of pieces of evidence the commonwealth is going to need a significant amount of time added to discovery to accommodate the initial and follow up requests.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff responds to the objection as follows:

1. Eviction timing & movement logs (Relevance): It is the sincere belief of the Plaintiff that the #commands logs may include information other than mere "movements to the plot", as the Commonwealth submits. The Plaintiff believes that, should this information contain logs of plot transfers by DCT staff, this would help to establish the timeline of the case more precisely. Therefore, the material is relevant.
2. Discord tickets & "privacy": Vague references to "privacy" isn’t a recognized discovery objection in our courts; the Objections Guide lists “Relevance,” “Ambiguous,” and “Privilege,” among others. If the Commonwealth claims a specific privilege, it must say which one and why. Otherwise, Rule 4.7 governs: relevant tickets/messages/screenshots are discoverable with the Court’s sign-off. And where sensitivity exists, the Court has managed that before via closed court—a tool that addresses privacy without blocking discovery. The Plaintiff asks that, the Court order production (even if in closed court) instead of sustaining a blanket and vague "privacy" objection.
3. Search terms/timeframe & "burden": There is no numeric cap on requests for production. The only "5-item" limit in our rules is for interrogatories (Rule 4.8), not for document/message production under Rule 4.7. If the Commonwealth genuinely needs more time or a rolling schedule to collect materials, the Rules provide the remedy: request an extension of discovery. Burden isn’t a basis to refuse relevant production outright; it’s a basis to seek scheduling relief or propose an alternative search protocol. Our requests are tied to a one-month window and to pleaded issues; that is reasonable under the Rules.
4. On the request to force "5 key themes": That proposed cap misreads the Rules. The "5" limit applies only to interrogatories (Rule 4.8). Document/message requests are generally governed by relevance and fairness (Rules 4.1, 4.7); imposing an arbitrary theme cap would undermine that purpose - particularly when there are more than 5 causes of actions presented in the Complaint. If the Court prefers, we’re happy to confer on alternate parameters for searching, but a hard cap does not appear to be compelled by any authority.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (and, if applicable, Classification Act Section 8, second Clause 9; "A Court may issue a subpoena to order the disclosure of classified material to... open court as determined by the Judicial Officer"), the Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to compel the following from MysticPhunky, an employee of the DCT:

• Any Conversations to which MysticPhunky has access involving Dearev and MysticPhunky regarding any of the Plots;
  • Reason: As shown in Exhibit P-018 and Exhibit P-019, it appears that Dearev asked MysticPhunky to auction a plot that Dearev had evicted early just to bid on that plot. The exact details are relevant to the amended complaint, as they may go to motive behind the early eviction.
• Any Conversations between xEndeavour and MysticPhunky regarding any of the Plots and/or Dearev's handling of any of the Plots.
  • Reason: In Exhibit P-019, xEndeavour instructed MysticPhunky to describe the interaction in a private channel. The exact details are relevant to the amended complaint, as they may go to motive behind the auction being filed when it was.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-021

Spoiler: Exhibit P-022

Spoiler: Exhibit P-023

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff notifies the Court that the Plaintiff will amend Claim for Relief 7 ("Corruption") to read as follows:

7. Corruption​

Legal standard​

Under the Criminal Code Act, a person commits Corruption when a government official “uses a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” The law prescribes a penalty of up to 250 penalty units ($25,000) and up to two months’ disqualification from public office. The Criminal Code Act notes that "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages", and the Plaintiff seeks damages arising from a Commonwealth official's (Dearev's) actions taken in their official capacity here (eviction of the plots early and subsequent instructions to auctioning individuals).

Application to the facts​

1. Use of government position. At all relevant times, Dearev was a DCT employee (specifically, he serves as inspector, inspection officer, and inspection manager; see: Exhibit P-021). In his official capacity, Dearev actioned the eviction of eight of the Plaintiff’s properties, including c343. The DCT’s Evictions Policy in effect at the time permits an eviction only “on or after the eviction date, based on [the employee’s] own timezone.” Yet the eviction was processed before the authorized date (while it was still July 30 in Brazil, where Dearev resides), contravening the policy he was duty-bound to follow.
2. Self-dealing intent tied to the eviction. In internal communications later posted as Exhibit P-018, MysticPhunky (the auction host) stated that “Dearev has been doing evictions a bit early” and that Dearev asked him “to auction a plot just for him to bid on it,” identifying one of the plots he evicted early. That statement was made directly to the Secretary (xEndeavour), who acknowledged reviewing the issue. This is relatively contemporaneous evidence that the early eviction and the auction were linked to Dearev’s personal bidding plans.
3. Unfair advantages created by both the eviction itself and in the auction Dearev sought to trigger.
   a) Before the eviction, Dearev had no lawful way to compel transfer of c343; acquisition depended entirely on the owner’s voluntary sale. By using his DCT-granted power to evict, Dearev transformed the Plaintiff's secure ownership into a compulsory public sale—a new, government-created acquisition channel—thereby positioning himself to forcibly gain control simply by outbidding the dispossessed owner. That shift from the status quo ante was both predictable and purposeful, and it existed even before any specific bidding conduct.
   b) The c343 auction used the DCT’s “Fairness Fee” schedule (0–9 plots: 0%; 10–14: 25%; 15–20: 50%; 20+: 75%). Dearev’s own bids expressly added a “levy,” reflecting a 25% fee for him; the Plaintiff, as prior owner, faced a 50% “previous owner” repurchase fee—meaning the Plaintiff had to commit substantially more cash for the same nominal bid than did Dearev.
   c) During that same auction, Dearev confirmed he was bidding corporate funds but “not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot,” demonstrating active participation and attempted financial positioning in the sale that followed his own eviction action.
   d) It is established in the facts that Dearev has shown extreme hostility towards the GER, in which Dearev has branded the GER a "paramilitary extremist group". It is also well-established that YeetGlazer is among the GER’s most public-facing members, having served in the Congress. While much of this claim discusses particular financial advantages, it would be to Dearev’s political advantage to see the GER’s most public-facing member crushed under the weight of the DCT’s evictions power.
4. Financial means and coordination. Dearev posted an image of “GlobalCenter’s bank acc” showing dye stacks that, per documents provided by DNB’s operator, correspond to DNB banknotes—i.e., liquid notes available to finance his bids. That public post from Dearev was made in the c343 auction thread.
5. Prior interest and motive. Before the eviction/auction, Dearev (on behalf of GlobalCenter) had already approached the Plaintiff seeking to purchase c343 privately and was declined—supporting motive to secure the plot by leveraging his official role.
6. Departmental authority to set policy (and the duty to obey it). The Property Standards Act authorizes the DCT to promulgate eviction regulations; once promulgated, the Department and its agents must conduct evictions in accordance with those regulations. Disregarding the “on or after the date, in the employee’s timezone” rule to advance a personal bidding opportunity is incompatible with official duty.

Conclusion​

By (i) using his DCT position to precipitate an early eviction contrary to policy, (ii) pressing for an auction tailored to his participation, and (iii) entering that auction with a structural fee advantage over the former owner that he could reasonably foresee, Dearev used a government position to gain an unfair advantage for himself, inconsistent with his official duty. That satisfies the elements of Corruption under the Criminal Code Act. As Criminal Code Act provisions make clear that “crimes may be used to seek damages” in a civil claim, this constitutes an actionable claim for relief.

The principles of a proto-respondeat superior with respect to the agents of the Commonwealth apply here and are well-established in case law. As is most clearly articulated in the precedent AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98, this Court has found that when a tort is committed by an individual acting "as an agent of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is held liable for these violations" (emphasis mine). Accordingly, as Dearev acted as an agent of the Commonwealth when corruptly evicting the Plots (and thereby proximately causing the gravamen of this complaint), the Court should find the Commonwealth civilly liable for the corrupt and outrageous conduct of its agent Dearev.

Upon acknowledgement from Your Honor, the Plaintiff will make these edits to the amended complaint.

 

[End]

Your honour, noting the significant amount of matters before the court, and the pending motion to dismiss, I will request to extend discovery for at least another 96 hours from your ruling on the motions.

The amount of information that we need to cover is extensive.

 

[End]

Why did an official from the DCT choose to evict properties earlier than was permitted under the DCT’s eviction policy at the time?

The Department's policies are very clear about when a property can be evicted. The individual did not have a lawful reason to evict the properties early and acted outside of DCT policy.

The Commonwealth recommends that the plaintiff pursues these matters with the individual directly where they are able to make their own representations as to the legality of their actions.

Why did the DCT choose to send the Plots to auction even after the Plaintiff had opened a ticket with the DCT and stated in it that he had met the playtime requirement?
Because they had not met the playtime requirement at the time that the properties were evicted. As you can see in the plan data, the plaintiff spent approximately 7 hours and 40 minutes in game during July.

On 30/31 July, the plaintiff had 4 hours and 13 minutes playtime.
Later on 30/31 July, the plaintiff spent 3 hours and 26 minutes online, bringing their playtime above the 6 hour requirement. However, this was done well into the eviction date for many of our inspectors and by this time, the property was already evicted.

1. When they opened their ticket, they were asked if they had the playtime prior to the eviction.

2. The inspector advised that they did not have the playtime required.

D-001

3. The plaintiff appealed to the DCT citing personal real-life matters but did not submit a formal deferral request. They also argued that the seven-day period had not elapsed, basing this on their concern that the eviction occurred before exactly seven days had passed in their own timezone.

D-002

D-003

4. After some back an fourth, the ticket was closed with no mention of dearev evicting the property prematurely for their own timezone/

5. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit with this new information and I told the Attorney General (3 Aug) that, upon review of this new information, the a DCT inspector had evicted the plots prematurely.

6. Mysticphunky messages me to tell me the same as what was already raised in the case (4 Aug).

D-004

D-005

7. I am assigned the case by the President in the absence of the Attorney General (6 Aug) and I move to resolve the matter, recognising that the DCT's inspector had not acted within Department Policy.

We moved to return the plots and offer significant compensation for the lost plot and inconvience.

8. MysticPhunky also messages about Dearev's conduct on this date.

D-006

So with that context, it was not a decision we made in the context of the legal argument brought forward by this case. Based on the information we had at the time, the Department's actions were legal and within policy. As soon as we learned that it was not within policy, we moved to correct the wrong and acknowledged that the information presented in this case warrants the return of the plots due to them being evicted outside of Department policy.

To the best of the Commonwealth’s knowledge, which plot does DCT Employee MysticPhunky refer to in the message depicted within Exhibit P-018 when Musticphunky writes “Dearev asked me to auction a plot just for him to bid on it”?

Mystic's comment in P-018 was addressed in his channel, as pictured in D-008. We dispelled many misconceptions. Any player is able to request someone to auction a property that they are interested in. The Department will be adopting a conflict of interest policy in light of Mystic's comments about Dearev's actions to prevent such matters in future.

Yes or no: When Dearev evicted the Plots, was Dearev acting as an agent of the Commonwealth (including any department/executive agency thereof)?
You should know me better than to answer yes or no question - I will employ the precedent of Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21 where I am legally entitled to answer the question in the way I wish, so long as I answer the question directly.

Agency is about the relationship of authority. While Dearev was an agent of the Commonwealth by virtue of his position within the Department, he lacked the lawful authority to act as an agent in these particular circumstances. Consequently, the Department is vicariously liable for the losses sustained by the plaintiff, and we have taken reasonable steps to remedy the wrong committed by the agent acting outside the scope of the law.

To what extent does the DCT conduct regular compliance reviews that assess whether or not plots were evicted at the proper time under DCT policy?

The DCT primarily addresses these issues on the complaint of an individual impacted. In this case, we did so when it was raised that the evicting officer evicted the property early according to their timezone (which was first raise din this lawsuit).

 

[Franciscus]

Why did an official from the DCT choose to evict properties earlier than was permitted under the DCT’s eviction policy at the time?

The Department's policies are very clear about when a property can be evicted. The individual did not have a lawful reason to evict the properties early and acted outside of DCT policy.

The Commonwealth recommends that the plaintiff pursues these matters with the individual directly where they are able to make their own representations as to the legality of their actions.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth must "must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability" the interrogatories asked of them. In this case, the Commonwealth has plainly failed to do so. The response does not substantially attempt to answer the question, which simply asked why the Commonwealth's agent chose to act the way that the agent did.

The question asked here is plainly known by the Commonwealth and those authorized to represent it. Indeed, Acting Attorney General is Dearev and Dearev has already spoken on behalf of the Commonwealth in this case (see: Exhibit P-I01). When the Acting Attorney General (who has already acted as representation on behalf of the Commonwealth in this case) plainly knows the concrete answer to the question of why the Commonwealth's agent (himself) acted a certain way, the Commonwealth is obligated to state that knowledge: plain and simple. This goes to the heart of the purpose of interrogatories, which is to clarify matters of fact prior to the trial.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-I01

Your honor, The commonwealth requests a response.

In short, this answer is not to the best of the Commonwealth's ability. The Plaintiff asks Your Honor to direct the Commonwealth to provide a direct, substantial. and affirmative answer to this question to the best of their ability.

 

[Franciscus]

Yes or no: When Dearev evicted the Plots, was Dearev acting as an agent of the Commonwealth (including any department/executive agency thereof)?
You should know me better than to answer yes or no question - I will employ the precedent of Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21 where I am legally entitled to answer the question in the way I wish, so long as I answer the question directly.

Agency is about the relationship of authority. While Dearev was an agent of the Commonwealth by virtue of his position within the Department, he lacked the lawful authority to act as an agent in these particular circumstances. Consequently, the Department is vicariously liable for the losses sustained by the plaintiff, and we have taken reasonable steps to remedy the wrong committed by the agent acting outside the scope of the law.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

Your Honor,

This is a simple yes or no question. While the question may have been indirectly answered ("the Department is vicariously liable for the losses sustained by the plaintiff, and we have taken reasonable steps to remedy the wrong committed by the agent acting outside the scope of the law" implies that Dearev was acting as an agent), amd admits liability, the Commonwealth has not provided a direct answer to the very simple yes or no question.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to compel the Commonwealth to state "yes" or "no" on the question, in addition to its explanation, so as to clearly answer the question directly to the best of the Commonwealth's ability (as is required under Rule 4.8).

 

[Franciscus]

To the best of the Commonwealth’s knowledge, which plot does DCT Employee MysticPhunky refer to in the message depicted within Exhibit P-018 when Musticphunky writes “Dearev asked me to auction a plot just for him to bid on it”?

Mystic's comment in P-018 was addressed in his channel, as pictured in D-008. We dispelled many misconceptions. Any player is able to request someone to auction a property that they are interested in. The Department will be adopting a conflict of interest policy in light of Mystic's comments about Dearev's actions to prevent such matters in future.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

Your Honor:

The question was very direct, asking about the specific plot that MysticPhunky referred to. Under Rule 4.8, the Commonwealth must answer interrogatories "truthfully and to the best of their ability".

The response, while referring to other pieces of evidence, did not actually state in prose the plot number - the core request of the question. This is an extremely simple thing that could be done, and have answered the very simple and direct question in less than five words.

The Plaintiff asks Your Honor that the Commonwealth be compelled to give the plot number in prose and explicitly.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-024

Spoiler: Exhibit P-025

Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5

 

[JunkCereal]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

I. SETTLEMENT
It is not correct to say that, since a settlement offer has been made, Plaintiff no longer has standing. Though the offer does aim to provide relief, the claims will only be resolved - and therefore subject to dismissal - once Plaintiff accepts the offer or a final judgment has been entered.

II. LIABILITY
The Motion to Dismiss alleges that government officer dearev evicted Plaintiff contrary to department policy. If this were the end of it, the motion would be correct that the government would not be liable since the officer acted outside of their terms of employment, nullifying the principle of respondeat superior. However, the officer’s actions were upheld and enforced by other officers of the Commonwealth. This means that the Commonwealth can be held liable for the actions of the offending officer, including the alleged corruption - assuming it is proven that the officer’s acts were indeed corrupt. To clarify: the Commonwealth is potentially liable because it failed to address the incorrect actions of its officer not because of the principle of respondeat superior.

III. REPRESENTATION
The appeal of Matthew100x v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 does not apply here since Plaintiff is only suing the Commonwealth and is not asking for the personal punishment of or damages from the named officer.

IV. DECISION
The Court denies the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[JunkCereal]

Objection

Relevance

Your Honour, the Defence respectfully objects to the Plaintiff’s proposed amendment on the grounds that the newly raised facts and allegations pertain to the personal conduct of an individual, Dearev, in a private capacity.

These matters, specifically relating to corporate finances, auction bidding strategy, and alleged advantages in auction fees are not acts undertaken in the course of that individual’s official duties within the Department.

The Commonwealth’s legal representation extends only to actions carried out within the scope of an official role or as a direct consequence of the performance of those duties. The Plaintiff’s amendment seeks to draw the Commonwealth into a dispute arising from purely private commercial dealings, which is outside the jurisdictional and substantive scope of this proceeding (Yeetglazer's plots being evicted prior to the evicting officer's timezone).

Permitting such an amendment would unduly prejudice the Defence by requiring it to answer allegations unrelated to the Department’s functions, policies, or decision-making processes, thereby diverting judicial resources and expanding the case beyond its proper bounds.

For these reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court reject the proposed amendment and require the plaintiff to refile in a separate matter.

Overruled. A part of Plaintiff's responsibility in proving the Commonwealth's liability in the corruption claim is to demonstrate that the government officer's acts were corrupt. Regardless, the Court will provide an early warning to Plaintiff to not venture from their claims against the Commonwealth and to take note of the reason the Commonwealth may have liability.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

Your Honor,

This is a simple yes or no question. While the question may have been indirectly answered ("the Department is vicariously liable for the losses sustained by the plaintiff, and we have taken reasonable steps to remedy the wrong committed by the agent acting outside the scope of the law" implies that Dearev was acting as an agent), amd admits liability, the Commonwealth has not provided a direct answer to the very simple yes or no question.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to compel the Commonwealth to state "yes" or "no" on the question, in addition to its explanation, so as to clearly answer the question directly to the best of the Commonwealth's ability (as is required under Rule 4.8).

Overruled since the legal issue has been addressed and any answer would be irrelevant.

 

[End]

Objection

Relevance and Ambiguous

Your honour, the Commonwealth submits that:

1. The plots were evicted from the point in time that post was made in the eviction thread. The member's movements to the plot is not indicative of what time the plot was evicted. The eviction time is already present in evidence submitted.

2. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. I fail to see how another individual's ticket is relevant to this case.

3. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. The plaintiff has requested 35 terms for a period of a month, which would equate to 100s of screenshots.

The defence request that the plaintiff reduce their requests for production to 5 key themes that we can present to the best of our ability. If the plaintiff is allowed to request 1000s of pieces of evidence the commonwealth is going to need a significant amount of time added to discovery to accommodate the initial and follow up requests.

Objection

Ambiguous

The defence objects to all motions to compel raised by the plaintiff on the basis of being unreasonable, ambiguous, and far-reaching.

Evidence request should be far more specific than anywhere on discord over a month-long timeframe.

Your honour, I believe we are still waiting on a ruling for these objections.

 

[JunkCereal]

Some clarifications before the Court rules on pending matters.
1. Discovery will be extended for an additional 5 days from the time of this post. The same rules apply regarding extensions and ending early.
2. The legal issue of vicarious liability and respondeat superior are not resolved as implied in prior statements from the Court. There will likely be a period after Discovery but before the trial when the Court will ask for briefs from both sides regarding the issue of liability since it may depend on facts discovered through Discovery. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[JunkCereal]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth must "must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability" the interrogatories asked of them. In this case, the Commonwealth has plainly failed to do so. The response does not substantially attempt to answer the question, which simply asked why the Commonwealth's agent chose to act the way that the agent did.

The question asked here is plainly known by the Commonwealth and those authorized to represent it. Indeed, Acting Attorney General is Dearev and Dearev has already spoken on behalf of the Commonwealth in this case (see: Exhibit P-I01). When the Acting Attorney General (who has already acted as representation on behalf of the Commonwealth in this case) plainly knows the concrete answer to the question of why the Commonwealth's agent (himself) acted a certain way, the Commonwealth is obligated to state that knowledge: plain and simple. This goes to the heart of the purpose of interrogatories, which is to clarify matters of fact prior to the trial.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-I01

View attachment 59763

In short, this answer is not to the best of the Commonwealth's ability. The Plaintiff asks Your Honor to direct the Commonwealth to provide a direct, substantial. and affirmative answer to this question to the best of their ability.

Sustained with a caveat. To the best of your ability, the Commonwealth is directed to answer the question. If the information has to be obtained from the officer directly, they should be made aware of their fifth right.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

Your Honor:

The question was very direct, asking about the specific plot that MysticPhunky referred to. Under Rule 4.8, the Commonwealth must answer interrogatories "truthfully and to the best of their ability".

The response, while referring to other pieces of evidence, did not actually state in prose the plot number - the core request of the question. This is an extremely simple thing that could be done, and have answered the very simple and direct question in less than five words.

The Plaintiff asks Your Honor that the Commonwealth be compelled to give the plot number in prose and explicitly.

Sustained. The Commonwealth is directed to answer the question.

Objection

Relevance and Ambiguous

Your honour, the Commonwealth submits that:

1. The plots were evicted from the point in time that post was made in the eviction thread. The member's movements to the plot is not indicative of what time the plot was evicted. The eviction time is already present in evidence submitted.

2. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. I fail to see how another individual's ticket is relevant to this case.

3. This is extremely broad. This is not a reasonable request for evidence and is an extreme burden on the Commonwealth's time, resources, and may infringe on others' rights to privacy. The plaintiff has requested 35 terms for a period of a month, which would equate to 100s of screenshots.

The defence request that the plaintiff reduce their requests for production to 5 key themes that we can present to the best of our ability. If the plaintiff is allowed to request 1000s of pieces of evidence the commonwealth is going to need a significant amount of time added to discovery to accommodate the initial and follow up requests.

Overruled. If the Commonwealth is concerned any documents it would submit contain private information, they are directed to mention it to the Court so that the documents may be submitted in a closed court session if necessary. The concerns with broad requests and burden will be considered when issuing the subpoenas.

Objection

Ambiguous

The defence objects to all motions to compel raised by the plaintiff on the basis of being unreasonable, ambiguous, and far-reaching.

Evidence request should be far more specific than anywhere on discord over a month-long timeframe.

Overruled. The issue raised will be considered.

 

[JunkCereal]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76
SUBPOENA

The Court grants a modified version of Plaintiff's first Motion to Compel.

The Commonwealth is ordered to produce the following documents:
1. Any entries from dearev in the #Commands channel on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server sent between 2:30 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025 and 3:00 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025, including full and complete timestamps and message metadata.

2. Any entries in any discord ticket created or responded to by the Commonwealth or its agents on any DemocracyCraft-related server regarding the evictions described published before the submission of the initial complaint by the Plaintiff and in the 15 calendar days prior (inclusive, in Eastern Daylight Time).

3. Any messages (including metadata and complete timestamps) sent on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server published on or after 15 July 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time) and before the time of the defense's submission of their initial answer to complaint containing any of the following strings or substrings, capitalization ignored: "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343".

You have 72 hours to produce this material, but extensions may be requested if necessary.

The Court does not fully grant the third request since it's unclear how a lot of the terms isolated would be relevant to the case. For example, it's questionable whether any post with the term "end" would be relevant. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue their third request, they're directed to file a new motion framing it in a way that would be more likely to produce relevant material.

The motions directed to individuals who are not parties to the case are still under consideration for procedural concerns.

 

[Franciscus]

3. Any messages (including metadata and complete timestamps) sent on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server published on or after 15 July 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time) and the time of the defense's submission of their initial answer to complaint containing any of the following strings or substrings, capitalization ignored: "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343".

Motion

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

Your Honor,

I realize that this may be my fault, but it appears that a key word may be missing here. I kindly ask you to insert “before” into the order before the text “the time of the defense's submission”. This would give us the timeframe between 15 July and the initial answer to complaint, which was the intent of the request (and I assume what Your Honor intended) when issuing this ruling.

My most sincere apologies for any typographical or editing errors on my end which may have led to this.

 

[JunkCereal]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

I realize that this may be my fault, but it appears that a key word may be missing here. I kindly ask you to insert “before” into the order before the text “the time of the defense's submission”. This would give us the timeframe between 15 July and the initial answer to complaint, which was the intent of the request (and I assume what Your Honor intended) when issuing this ruling.

My most sincere apologies for any typographical or editing errors on my end which may have led to this.

Granted. The order will be directly amended in the way described in this motion.

 

[End]

Sustained with a caveat. To the best of your ability, the Commonwealth is directed to answer the question. If the information has to be obtained from the officer directly, they should be made aware of their fifth right.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

The defence invites the plaintiff to call the individual concerned to testify before the court.

The Commonwealth’s can only speak to it’s own vicarious liability. It cannot speak on behalf of an individual who was acting outside of their authority.

The Federal Court is bound by the precedent set in the Supreme Court, whereby we have directly outlined our relationship with the evicting officer as an agent and our subsequent vicarious liability.

The Commonwealth should not be forced to answer for, or defend, someone who has not acted within their lawful authority.

 

[End]

The Commonwealth is ordered to produce the following documents:
1. Any entries from dearev in the #Commands channel on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server sent between 2:30 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025 and 3:00 Eastern Daylight Time on 30 July 2025, including full and complete timestamps and message metadata.

2. Any entries in any discord ticket created or responded to by the Commonwealth or its agents on any DemocracyCraft-related server regarding the evictionsdescribed published before the submission of the initial complaint by the Plaintiff and in the 15 calendar days prior (inclusive, in Eastern Daylight Time).

3. Any messages (including metadata and complete timestamps) sent on the Department of Construction and Transportation Discord server published on or after 15 July 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time) and before the time of the defense's submission of their initial answer to complaint containing any of the following strings or substrings, capitalization ignored: "477"; "025"; "017"; "018"; "073"; "047"; "054"; "343".

The commonwealth requests a side bar in the Judiciary Discord to provide this significant amount of evidence.

 

[JunkCereal]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

The defence invites the plaintiff to call the individual concerned to testify before the court.

The Commonwealth’s can only speak to it’s own vicarious liability. It cannot speak on behalf of an individual who was acting outside of their authority.

The Federal Court is bound by the precedent set in the Supreme Court, whereby we have directly outlined our relationship with the evicting officer as an agent and our subsequent vicarious liability.

The Commonwealth should not be forced to answer for, or defend, someone who has not acted within their lawful authority.

Denied. The request is for any information the Commonwealth already possesses not information from the individual. There is no expectation to compel the individual to tell you anything nor is there an expectation to defend the individual. If you do not know the answer, that's fine but needs to be stated.

Hopefully this helps clarify. A few examples: if you are personally aware of the reason for the eviction, you need to provide it. If it's available to the Commonwealth in a channel used by the Commonwealth, you need to provide it. If you have to compel the officer to inform you of the reason, you do not need to provide it.

The commonwealth requests a side bar in the Judiciary Discord to provide this significant amount of evidence.

Granted.

 

[End]

This is the extent of what the Commonwealth has been told.

 

[End]

Witnesses

Dearev
MysticPhunky
YeetGlazer

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following additional exhibits into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-026

Denied: dearev - Apprentice Constructor Application
See attached file "Dearev Apprentice Constructor Application"

Spoiler: Exhibit P-027

Accepted: dearev - Building Inspector Application
See attached file "Dearev Building Inspector Application"

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following additional exhibits into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-028

What is a CMOS Battery? How to Remove and Replace One in a Laptop
See attached PDF "CMOS Battery Description HP"

Spoiler: Exhibit P-029

Dearev & GlobalCenter Corporation v. Voyager Group [2025] FCR 74

Spoiler: Exhibit P-030

GlobalCenter Corporation v. Redmont Center Journal (RCJ) [2025] FCR 73

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following additional exhibit into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-031

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following additional exhibit into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-032

Default Time Zones
See attached file "Windows Default Time Zones"

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

Motion

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

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff seeks to compel the following from the Commonwealth:

1. The entirety of the thread in which the messages attached in the below quoted post from xEndeavour was sent:

   1. This is the extent of what the Commonwealth has been told.

The Plaintiff is not aware of the server on which this message was sent, but believes that Dearev's message was not unprompted. Other messages in that thread (such as xEndeavour's message to Dearev or the video of Dearev actioning a plot) may be relevant to the trial via the Commonwealth's knowledge of relevant facts, and the Plaintiff therefore requests it in discovery.

 

[End]

Interrogatories
1. Was the plaintiff a realtor at any point during July/August this year?

Request for Production
1. Contingent to the plaintiff being a realtor during this period: Please provide evidence of when you left that occupation.

The defence submits the following evidence:

D-009
Edit: Time taken: within 5 minutes of this post.

Requests for Production
1. Yeetglazer's Plan Analytics Calendar Profile for July/August (showing sessions and time on each date).

Witnesses
None at this stage.

Pending review of the plaintiff's requests and evidence, the defence will likely request a lesser discovery window.

 

[End]

Your Honor:

Motion

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

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff seeks to compel the following from the Commonwealth:

1. The entirety of the thread in which the messages attached in the below quoted post from xEndeavour was sent:

The Plaintiff is not aware of the server on which this message was sent, but believes that Dearev's message was not unprompted. Other messages in that thread (such as xEndeavour's message to Dearev or the video of Dearev actioning a plot) may be relevant to the trial via the Commonwealth's knowledge of relevant facts, and the Plaintiff therefore requests it in discovery.

If it may please the court, this is from the Department of Justice Discord in the Department's case coordination channel for this case.

I would like to warn the court that providing the Commonwealth's case coordination channel to the Plaintiff would prejudice the trial. Just the same as if the Defence requested the Plaintiff's communications with their lawyer, the Commonwealth should be entitled to invoke Attorney-Client Privilege in this instance.

I offer, however, that this message was provided without prompt and that there is no video of an eviction.

 

[Franciscus]

Interrogatories
1. Was the plaintiff a realtor at any point during July/August this year?

Request for Production
1. Contingent to the plaintiff being a realtor during this period: Please provide evidence of when you left that occupation.

The defence submits the following evidence:

D-009
View attachment 59903

Some clarifications before the Court rules on pending matters.
1. Discovery will be extended for an additional 5 days from the time of this post. The same rules apply regarding extensions and ending early.
2. The legal issue of vicarious liability and respondeat superior are not resolved as implied in prior statements from the Court. There will likely be a period after Discovery but before the trial when the Court will ask for briefs from both sides regarding the issue of liability since it may depend on facts discovered through Discovery. Apologies for the confusion.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), "Requests for Interrogatories must be made 72 hours prior to the end of discovery". Your Honor's order quoted above provided a 5-day extension of discovery from Thursday, August 14, at 11:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight time, meaning that discovery would end at Tuesday, August 19 at the same time.

72 hours prior to the end of discovery occurred on Saturday, August 14, at 11:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time. The Commonwealth has had ample time before this to submit interrogatories, but chose to file this interrogatory at 8:18 A.M. on Sunday, August 15. This is nearly a full day after the deadline to submit, and the late submission is given without any reason for its delay.

The Plaintiff therefore asks that the interrogatory be stricken for breaching procedure.

 

[End]

Your honour, it’s not a laborious request of the plaintiff.

Court rules dictate that opening statements should be made at the start of the case and we’ve allowed the plaintiff to make several amendments throughout with no objection.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour, it’s not a laborious request of the plaintiff.

Court rules dictate that opening statements should be made at the start of the case and we’ve allowed the plaintiff to make several amendments throughout with no objection.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor:

Commonwealth counsel xEndeavour has stated that "[c]ourt rules dictate that opening statements should be made at the start of the case". But this is not true, and it is not reasonable under the Court Rules.

The order of court proceedings is laid out quite explicitly in an easy-to-understand table. In Civil Proceedings, a lawsuit is filed, then an answer to complaint is given, and then discovery occurs. Only after discovery closes are opening statements given.

There is no reconciling xEndeavour's statements here; even if xEndeavour were to be referring to the initial complaint, Court Rule 3.3 explicitly allows for amendments to be made to a complaint ("[a]t anytime during the course of discovery, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may amend their Complaint").

The Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour be charged with perjury for this knowingly and demonstrably false statement. As a former Supreme Court Justice, there is simply no excuse here.

 

[End]

Apologies, I misspoke. Case filing rather than opening statement, which has been amended several times.

The plaintiff has amended their case filing several times, and while allowed to under court rules, it has been excessive.

The defence has not objected to this and requests the court make an exception to the defence’s request to provide an answer on a very simple question over the final 48 hours of Discovery.

If it’s not answered in interrogatories then the Defence will just ask it again in the trial anyway.

 

[End]

The defence enters the following into evidence:

D-010 — D-014

 

[Franciscus]

The defence has not objected to this...

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,

The Defense has posted a vociferous and lengthy objection to the Plaintiff's amendment to the complaint. For convenience, that objection is included below.

Objection

Relevance

Your Honour, the Defence respectfully objects to the Plaintiff’s proposed amendment on the grounds that the newly raised facts and allegations pertain to the personal conduct of an individual, Dearev, in a private capacity.

These matters, specifically relating to corporate finances, auction bidding strategy, and alleged advantages in auction fees are not acts undertaken in the course of that individual’s official duties within the Department.

The Commonwealth’s legal representation extends only to actions carried out within the scope of an official role or as a direct consequence of the performance of those duties. The Plaintiff’s amendment seeks to draw the Commonwealth into a dispute arising from purely private commercial dealings, which is outside the jurisdictional and substantive scope of this proceeding (Yeetglazer's plots being evicted prior to the evicting officer's timezone).

Permitting such an amendment would unduly prejudice the Defence by requiring it to answer allegations unrelated to the Department’s functions, policies, or decision-making processes, thereby diverting judicial resources and expanding the case beyond its proper bounds.

For these reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court reject the proposed amendment and require the plaintiff to refile in a separate matter.

That the Commonwealth's counsel did not object to the amendments to complaint is plainly false. And it would beggar belief for the Commonwealth's counsel to claim that they did not object to the amendments to complaint.

Did the Commonwealth's counsel knowingly provide the information that "[t]he defence has not objected to this"? Indeed he did: xEndeavour posted the very quoted objection.

As per the Criminal Code Act, perjury occurs when an individual "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law". As xEndeavour's claim was false, and xEndeavour knew the claim to be false, the Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour's false statements be stricken and asks that the Court consider that xEndeavour be charged 1 count with perjury in this instance.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following into Discovery:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-033

 

[End]

The defence enters the following into evidence:

D-015

 

[End]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,

The Defense has posted a vociferous and lengthy objection to the Plaintiff's amendment to the complaint. For convenience, that objection is included below.



That the Commonwealth's counsel did not object to the amendments to complaint is plainly false. And it would beggar belief for the Commonwealth's counsel to claim that they did not object to the amendments to complaint.

Did the Commonwealth's counsel knowingly provide the information that "[t]he defence has not objected to this"? Indeed he did: xEndeavour posted the very quoted objection.

As per the Criminal Code Act, perjury occurs when an individual "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law". As xEndeavour's claim was false, and xEndeavour knew the claim to be false, the Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour's false statements be stricken and asks that the Court consider that xEndeavour be charged 1 count with perjury in this instance.

The plaintiff has mischaracterised the defence's statement.

The defence has not objected to the Plaintiff amending their case filing several times throughout the case so far. While we have objected to relevance, we have not objected to the several amendments we have seen so late in the case.

Therefore, it is only reasonable that the Judge considers our request an easy-to-answer question about the plaintiff's employment well into discovery.

We are talking about timeliness here and how late things are proposed.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 (In-Game Trial Requests), the Plaintiff makes known his request for an in-game trial, beginning at 4 PM Mountain Daylight Time on Wednesday, 27 August, 2025.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff hereby modifies the facts of the complaint as follows and notifies the court of this, pursuant to Rule 3.4 (Amendment to Answer).

Fact 1 is modified to read as follows:

• YeetGlazer is a realtor in the Commonwealth of Redmont (see: Exhibit P-034).

After fact No. 41, the following facts are inserted and subsequent facts renumbered:

• 42. On July 11, 2025, Dearev submitted an Apprentice Constructor application to the DCT (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 43. In that application, Dearev stated that he was most active "GMT-3 weekdays (3pm-9pm) generally" (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 44. xEndeavour read Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 45. xEndeavour made two posts in Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application - one on 20 July 2025 and one on 24 July 2025 (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 46. In a Building Inspector Application Dearev posted in March 2025, Dearev also stated that he was most active "GMT-3 weekdays (3pm-9pm) generally" (see: Exhibit P-027).
• 47. In no fewer than 2 applications for jobs at the DCT, Dearev had given his times of activity in GMT-3.
• 48. After having read Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application, which includes Dearev as having given his time in GMT-3, xEndeavour stated in that "The department has acted completely legally, within policy, and how it always carries out evictions" with respect to the evictions of the Plots (see: Exhibits P-026, P-002).
• 49. xEndeavour stated that he made an "assumption" when the Plaintiff opened a ticket to contest the eviction and that xEndeavour did not "go and find where dearev lives" before answering the Plaintiff in the conversation depicted in P-002 (see: Exhibit D-015).
• 50. xEndeavour could have checked Dearev's Apprentice Constructor Application and/or Building Inspector Application for Dearev's timezone at any point during which the conversation depicted in Exhibit P-002 was ongoing.
• 51. xEndeavour, the DCT Secretary, acknowledges that the DCT does not provide any structural oversight of its Inspection Officers' actions (see: Exhibit D-014).
• 52. xEndeavour, as DCT Secretary, failed to exercise due care in not reversing the evictions of the Plots prior to the filing of this lawsuit, even after a Discord Ticket contesting early eviction was raised.

The final fact's substantial content is modified to read as follows:

• As a result of the evictions, the Plaintiff lacked access to the Plots at the time of the initial Complaint's filing.

What's more, pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following exhibits into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-034

Spoiler: Exhibit P-035

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff notifies the Court that the Plaintiff will amend Claim for Relief 7 ("Corruption") to read as follows:



Upon acknowledgement from Your Honor, the Plaintiff will make these edits to the amended complaint.

Your Honor:

Brief

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

Per Rule 3.4, and not being able to discern an explicit acknowledgement of the above, the Plaintiff's counsel hereby amends the complaint's seventh claim for relief to read as follows:

7. Corruption​

The Plaintiff posits that premature eviction also amounts to Corruption as defined by Redmont’s criminal code. A government official commits corruption, under Criminal Code Act Part II, Section 1(a), by “us[ing] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage to the government (and possibly to any third parties awaiting the land’s auction) at the expense of the Plaintiff’s rights. This act was wholly inconsistent with the official duty of DCT staff to follow the Evictions Policy and uphold the law.

There are several ways in which these actions may have gained an unfair advantage for Dearev or for some other individual. It is established in the facts that Dearev has shown extreme hostility towards the GER, in which Dearev has branded the GER a “paramilitary extremist group”. It is also well-established that YeetGlazer is among the GER’s most public-facing members, having served in the Congress. It would be to Dearev’s advantage to see the GER’s most public-facing member crushed under the weight of the DCT’s evictions power. And Dearev had indeed previously expressed an interest in obtaining one of the very same plots he evicted: c343; evicting this plot would give Dearev an unfair advantage relative to the status quo ante in Dearev's ability to purchase this plot.

Even if the motive for the early eviction were for more mundane things, such as convenience or haste, the effect was to prefer the government’s administrative timeline over the citizen’s property rights – a classic abuse of power. In the absence of any valid reason to violate the policy, one must conclude the official acted ultra vires and for an improper purpose.

Such conduct meets the statutory criteria for corruption. In this case, the DCT’s flouting of the rules indicates bad faith or improper influence (for instance, perhaps there may have been an unofficial directive to clear plots early, or perhaps just personal impatience). The Plaintiff alleges that this wrongful eviction was not a mere mistake but a deliberate act inconsistent with lawful duty – essentially, a corrupt act. Using this Criminal Code violation as a basis for civil liability, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Commonwealth accountable for the corrupt practices of its agent. The claim of corruption underscores the egregious nature of the Defendant’s conduct and further justifies an award of punitive damages to deter such abuses of public office.

Spoiler: Expanded Thoughts

Legal standard​

Under the Criminal Code Act, a person commits Corruption when a government official “uses a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” The law prescribes a penalty of up to 250 penalty units ($25,000) and up to two months’ disqualification from public office. The Criminal Code Act notes that "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages", and the Plaintiff seeks damages arising from a Commonwealth official's (Dearev's) actions taken in their official capacity here (eviction of the plots early and subsequent instructions to auctioning individuals).

Application to the facts​

1. Use of government position. At all relevant times, Dearev was a DCT employee (specifically, he serves as inspector, inspection officer, and inspection manager; see: Exhibit P-021). In his official capacity, Dearev actioned the eviction of eight of the Plaintiff’s properties, including c343. The DCT’s Evictions Policy in effect at the time permits an eviction only “on or after the eviction date, based on [the employee’s] own timezone.” Yet the eviction was processed before the authorized date (while it was still July 30 in Brazil, where Dearev resides), contravening the policy he was duty-bound to follow.
2. Self-dealing intent tied to the eviction. In internal communications later posted as Exhibit P-018, MysticPhunky (the auction host) stated that “Dearev has been doing evictions a bit early” and that Dearev asked him “to auction a plot just for him to bid on it,” identifying one of the plots he evicted early. That statement was made directly to the Secretary (xEndeavour), who acknowledged reviewing the issue. This is relatively contemporaneous evidence that the early eviction and the auction were linked to Dearev’s personal bidding plans.
3. Unfair advantages created by both the eviction itself and in the auction Dearev sought to trigger.
   a) Before the eviction, Dearev had no lawful way to compel transfer of c343; acquisition depended entirely on the owner’s voluntary sale. By using his DCT-granted power to evict, Dearev transformed the Plaintiff's secure ownership into a compulsory public sale—a new, government-created acquisition channel—thereby positioning himself to forcibly gain control simply by outbidding the dispossessed owner. That shift from the status quo ante was both predictable and purposeful, and it existed even before any specific bidding conduct.
   b) The c343 auction used the DCT’s “Fairness Fee” schedule (0–9 plots: 0%; 10–14: 25%; 15–20: 50%; 20+: 75%). Dearev’s own bids expressly added a “levy,” reflecting a 25% fee for him; the Plaintiff, as prior owner, faced a 50% “previous owner” repurchase fee—meaning the Plaintiff had to commit substantially more cash for the same nominal bid than did Dearev.
   c) During that same auction, Dearev confirmed he was bidding corporate funds but “not blowing 80% of corporate funds on a plot,” demonstrating active participation and attempted financial positioning in the sale that followed his own eviction action.
   d) It is established in the facts that Dearev has shown extreme hostility towards the GER, in which Dearev has branded the GER a "paramilitary extremist group". It is also well-established that YeetGlazer is among the GER’s most public-facing members, having served in the Congress. While much of this claim discusses particular financial advantages, it would be to Dearev’s political advantage to see the GER’s most public-facing member crushed under the weight of the DCT’s evictions power.
4. Financial means and coordination. Dearev posted an image of “GlobalCenter’s bank acc” showing dye stacks that, per documents provided by DNB’s operator, correspond to DNB banknotes—i.e., liquid notes available to finance his bids. That public post from Dearev was made in the c343 auction thread.
5. Prior interest and motive. Before the eviction/auction, Dearev (on behalf of GlobalCenter) had already approached the Plaintiff seeking to purchase c343 privately and was declined—supporting motive to secure the plot by leveraging his official role.
6. Departmental authority to set policy (and the duty to obey it). The Property Standards Act authorizes the DCT to promulgate eviction regulations; once promulgated, the Department and its agents must conduct evictions in accordance with those regulations. Disregarding the “on or after the date, in the employee’s timezone” rule to advance a personal bidding opportunity is incompatible with official duty.

Conclusion​

By (i) using his DCT position to precipitate an early eviction contrary to policy, (ii) pressing for an auction tailored to his participation, and (iii) entering that auction with a structural fee advantage over the former owner that he could reasonably foresee, Dearev used a government position to gain an unfair advantage for himself, inconsistent with his official duty. That satisfies the elements of Corruption under the Criminal Code Act. As Criminal Code Act provisions make clear that “crimes may be used to seek damages” in a civil claim, this constitutes an actionable claim for relief. As the DCT asserted that Dearev's actions were legal, even when they had all the information necessary to know that the actions were illegal and even after the actions of Dearev to evict the Plots were contested, the DCT bears liability here.

 

[End]

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 (In-Game Trial Requests), the Plaintiff makes known his request for an in-game trial, beginning at 4 PM Mountain Daylight Time on Wednesday, 27 August, 2025.

Defence wishes against an in game trial.

 

[End]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff hereby modifies the facts of the complaint as follows and notifies the court of this, pursuant to Rule 3.4 (Amendment to Answer).

Fact 1 is modified to read as follows:

• YeetGlazer is a realtor in the Commonwealth of Redmont (see: Exhibit P-034).

After fact No. 41, the following facts are inserted and subsequent facts renumbered:

• 42. On July 11, 2025, Dearev submitted an Apprentice Constructor application to the DCT (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 43. In that application, Dearev stated that he was most active "GMT-3 weekdays (3pm-9pm) generally" (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 44. xEndeavour read Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 45. xEndeavour made two posts in Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application - one on 20 July 2025 and one on 24 July 2025 (see: Exhibit P-026).
• 46. In a Building Inspector Application Dearev posted in March 2025, Dearev also stated that he was most active "GMT-3 weekdays (3pm-9pm) generally" (see: Exhibit P-027).
• 47. In no fewer than 2 applications for jobs at the DCT, Dearev had given his times of activity in GMT-3.
• 48. After having read Dearev's Apprentice Constructor application, which includes Dearev as having given his time in GMT-3, xEndeavour stated in that "The department has acted completely legally, within policy, and how it always carries out evictions" with respect to the evictions of the Plots (see: Exhibits P-026, P-002).
• 49. xEndeavour stated that he made an "assumption" when the Plaintiff opened a ticket to contest the eviction and that xEndeavour did not "go and find where dearev lives" before answering the Plaintiff in the conversation depicted in P-002 (see: Exhibit D-015).
• 50. xEndeavour could have checked Dearev's Apprentice Constructor Application and/or Building Inspector Application for Dearev's timezone at any point during which the conversation depicted in Exhibit P-002 was ongoing.
• 51. xEndeavour, the DCT Secretary, acknowledges that the DCT does not provide any structural oversight of its Inspection Officers' actions (see: Exhibit D-014).
• 52. xEndeavour, as DCT Secretary, failed to exercise due care in not reversing the evictions of the Plots prior to the filing of this lawsuit, even after a Discord Ticket contesting early eviction was raised.

The final fact's substantial content is modified to read as follows:

• As a result of the evictions, the Plaintiff lacked access to the Plots at the time of the initial Complaint's filing.

What's more, pursuant to Rule 4.6, the Plaintiff submits the following exhibits into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-034

View attachment 60125

Spoiler: Exhibit P-035

View attachment 60132

Your honour, this takes us to 50+ facts.

This is excessive.

Not all facts need to be amended into the case filing and responded to by the defence.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

Pursuant to Rule 3.4 (Amendment to Answer), the Plaintiff modifies the Claims for Relief as follows:

Following the third paragraph in the the third claim for relief, the Section Header to read "4. Common Law Negligence" is inserted and subsequent claims renumbered.

 

[End]

D-016

D-017

 

[End]

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

No date or timestamp is provided

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour, this takes us to 50+ facts.

This is excessive.

Not all facts need to be amended into the case filing and responded to by the defence.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

There is no automatic entitlement under Rule 3.4 for the counterparty to respond to amendments to complaint via outbursts. xEndeavour's outburst here is not a motion, nor an objection, nor a request for a response, any other sort of permitted filing.

The Plaintiff asks that xEndeavour be held in contempt of court for this outburst and that it be stricken from the record.

 

[End]

Interrogatories
1. Was the plaintiff a realtor at any point during July/August this year?

Request for Production
1. Contingent to the plaintiff being a realtor during this period: Please provide evidence of when you left that occupation.

The defence submits the following evidence:

D-009
View attachment 59903

Your honour, the Defence requests that you see to this request and the following chain of objections so that the case can progress to trial.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

OBJECTION
Relevance

No date or timestamp is provided

Response

Your Honor,

This is relevant to Fact No. 1, as it demonstrates that YeetGlazer is indeed a Realtor as of the time of the amended complaint. I will note that Exhibit D-009 likewise lacks a date or timestamp, and I contingently file the following provided that xEndeavour's objection is upheld:

The defence submits the following evidence:

D-009
View attachment 59903

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Relevance

No date or timestamp is provided

 

[End]

Response

Your Honor,

This is relevant to Fact No. 1, as it demonstrates that YeetGlazer is indeed a Realtor as of the time of the amended complaint. I will note that Exhibit D-009 likewise lacks a date or timestamp, and I contingently file the following provided that xEndeavour's objection is upheld:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Relevance

No date or timestamp is provided

D-009 has been updated with the time it was taken.

 

[End]

Your honour, if it may please the court, the Defence requires this request for production even more now than when first requested.

The plaintiff has now acquired the Realtor role as shown in D-018.

Why does this matter? The plaintiff could well have just tried to mislead the Defence and the court in making their submission of P-034.

Interrogatories
1. Was the plaintiff a realtor at any point during July/August this year?

Request for Production
1. Contingent to the plaintiff being a realtor during this period: Please provide evidence of when you left that occupation.

The defence submits the following evidence:

D-009
Edit: Time taken: within 5 minutes of this post.
View attachment 59903

D-018
Taken: Within 5 minutes of this submission.

 

[Franciscus]

D-009 has been updated with the time it was taken.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under Rule 4.6, additional submissions of evidence may be made only "[a]t any point and anytime during discovery". However, discovery closed at 11:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time today, and the edit to the material submission was made after discovery was closed. This is impermissible under the Court Rules, and should be stricken.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour, if it may please the court, the Defence requires this request for production even more now than when first requested.

The plaintiff has now acquired the Realtor role as shown in D-018.

Why does this matter? The plaintiff could well have just tried to mislead the Defence and the court in making their submission of P-034.



D-018
Taken: Within 5 minutes of this submission.
View attachment 60177

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE


Your Honor:

Repeatedly, throughout this case, xEndeavour has made repeated outbursts that are not permitted under the Court Rules. Rather than waiting patiently for Your Honor to rule, as the Plaintiff is doing here, xEndeavour is seeking to add additional filings without permission under the Court Rules.

The Court Rules have purpose. They help maintain decorum in the Court, and they set standards for how lawyers should be acting.

Repeated outbursts from xEndeavour have disrupted the flow of the Court, and have caused the Plaintiff's counsel to fill up Your Honor's docket with objections that need not be filed but for xEndeavour's outbursts.

The Plaintiff's counsel respects your time, and kindly asks that xEndeavours outbursts be stricken. As xEndevour has already been warned about this, the Plaintiff's counsel asks Your Honor to hold xEndeavour in contempt here.

 

[End]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under Rule 4.6, additional submissions of evidence may be made only "[a]t any point and anytime during discovery". However, discovery closed at 11:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time today, and the edit to the material submission was made after discovery was closed. This is impermissible under the Court Rules, and should be stricken.

Request for your permission to make the above submissions beyond the discovery timelines.

They are made in good faith and without undue burden to any party or the trial.

Considerations include that the evidence was not amended, only the submission containing the evidence. The Plaintiff appears to be trying to remove any record of them not being a realtor from the record and has made a tactical submission at the end of discovery to achieve this.