Lawsuit: Dismissed AmityBlamity v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 3

[AmityBlamity]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

AmityBlamity
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Homeland Security

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 7th day of January, 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security HellsideBurnton, made a post in the government-announcements channel in the DemocracyCraft Discord server. The post (showcased in p-001) was a reply to a Recruitment Drive previously posted on the 27th day of December, 2024. Titled Dire Need of Officers, the post mentioned a lack of good officers and good applications, impressed upon the importance for additional officers and, in a list of clarifications, made two shocking statements:

- Your crimes will be accounted in the application process, including murder.
- We are not looking for lawyers.

As so eloquently put by Smallfries (showcased in p-002), "dhs doesnt want lawyers, just thugs to enforce their laws and punish people." Alexander Love, a veteran of the legal profession, concurred with a statement that "it feels targeted tbh" (also showcased in p-002).

However, it goes further than this. These discriminatory "clarifications" made by the Secretary of Homeland Security are a blatant violation of the Constitution of Redmont. Specifically:

- VII. Criminals, although broke the law, are still citizens of the server and therefore entitled to their rights. - The Department of Homeland Security, through their unfair judgment of a citizen's past, believe that criminals are deserving of fewer rights.

- XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status - The Department of Homeland Security is engaging in unfair discrimination against those who practice the Legal profession, as well as individuals with a criminal record.

- XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - The Department of Homeland Security dares to deprive educational, professional, and financial opportunities to those who practice the Legal profession, as well as individuals with a criminal record.

- XVI. No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law - The Department of Homeland Security aims to punish those who have served their debt to society by judging them more harshly against their "crimeless peers".

The Department of Homeland Security has, through its callous statement, caused unnecessary damage to the reputations and livelihoods of members of the legal profession (Plaintiff included) and those unfortunate enough to bear criminal records. Notably, Plaintiff has suffered significant emotional distress due to distrust created by this statement.

I. PARTIES
1. AmityBlamity, Attorney at Law (Private Practice)
2. Department of Homeland Security

II. FACTS
1. On the 7th day of January, HellsideBurnton made a post on the DemocracyCraft Discord server, highlighting the need for additional officers.
2. In the same post, HellsideBurnton made two unconstitutional "clarifications" that needlessly and shamelessly attacked members of the Legal profession and people with a criminal history.
3. As a result of said post, Plaintiff, an Attorney, has suffered emotional distress and damage to her reputation.
4. Plaintiff seeks to restore both her reputation and the reputation of others affected, as well as receive monetary relief for the damages suffered.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The unconstitutional statements made by the defendant has resulted in emotional distress and reputational loss to the Plaintiff, harming her ability to acquire new clients.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. A public apology from the Department of Homeland Security, and a retraction of the previously mentioned clarifications.
2. $20,000 in Emotional Damages.
3. $6,000 in Legal Fees.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7th day of January 2025

 

[xtub12345]

This case is asking for $26,000 total, the Federal Court has Original Jurisdiction over " Major ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ exceed‌s $40,000‌ ‌dollars.‌ ‌" Therefore, this case does not belong in the Federal Court and is remanded to the District Court.

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of AmityBlamity v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 3

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.

 

[Nacho]

Good Evening, Your Honor,

I will be representing the Commonwealth in this matter...

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The plaintiff has made a series of accusations against the Commonwealth with the posting of their case. The plaintiff has claimed that they have fallen victim to emotional distress due to an employment advertisement published by the Department of Homeland Security. The Commonwealth stipulates before the court that these claims are false and are of no legal standing before the court.

1. Violation Rule 5.12 (Lack of personal jurisdiction) - The plaintiff claiming they experience emotional distress on an announcement that is not directly addressed to them and made within a public setting is absurd.
2. Violation Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) - The plaintiff has not submitted an application that was denied using these standards, and thus, the plaintiff suffered no injury. With no injury, the plaintiff is not entitled to remedy and lacks standing to pursue this case.
3. Violation Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The plaintiff has claimed that the DHS providing employment requirements is considered unconstitutional. This is factually wrong as it’s the generalized right of employers to publish employment standards, and there is absolutely no verbiage within the Constitution that supports this claim for relief.

We also wish to request that the plaintiff be charged with a frivolous case should the court move forward with the dismissal. The Commonwealth finds it appalling to have to waste the court’s time, seeing that the plaintiff filed the case within the improper court to begin with.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor, I respectfully request the opportunity to respond to the Defense's Motion to Dismiss.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, I respectfully request the opportunity to respond to the Defense's Motion to Dismiss.

You may.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Good Evening, Your Honor,

I will be representing the Commonwealth in this matter...

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The plaintiff has made a series of accusations against the Commonwealth with the posting of their case. The plaintiff has claimed that they have fallen victim to emotional distress due to an employment advertisement published by the Department of Homeland Security. The Commonwealth stipulates before the court that these claims are false and are of no legal standing before the court.

1. Violation Rule 5.12 (Lack of personal jurisdiction) - The plaintiff claiming they experience emotional distress on an announcement that is not directly addressed to them and made within a public setting is absurd.
2. Violation Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) - The plaintiff has not submitted an application that was denied using these standards, and thus, the plaintiff suffered no injury. With no injury, the plaintiff is not entitled to remedy and lacks standing to pursue this case.
3. Violation Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The plaintiff has claimed that the DHS providing employment requirements is considered unconstitutional. This is factually wrong as it’s the generalized right of employers to publish employment standards, and there is absolutely no verbiage within the Constitution that supports this claim for relief.

We also wish to request that the plaintiff be charged with a frivolous case should the court move forward with the dismissal. The Commonwealth finds it appalling to have to waste the court’s time, seeing that the plaintiff filed the case within the improper court to begin with.

Thank you, Your Honor.

RESPONSE TO MOTION

Plaintiff moves that the defense's motion to dismiss is without merit. Responding to these alleged rule violations:

1. Violation Rule 5.12 (Lack of personal jurisdiction) - The announcement made a targeted statement about members of the Legal profession, of which I am a member. Defense's argument that the announcement being in a public setting somehow lessens or removes any emotional distress is bogus. A public announcement made by a government department has the potential to inflict massive damage to an entity's emotional, reputational, or financial state. Something I intend to prove if the honorable magistrate permits the case to move forward.

2. Violation Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) - As highlighted in my complaint, I was not given an opportunity to submit an application. DHS made it very clear they were not looking for lawyers. Regardless, Rule 2.1 requires a plaintiff to show that they:

a. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law - DHS' statement attacked the Lawyer profession, of which I am a member, resulting in significant emotional and reputational damage.
b. The cause of injury was against the law - As alleged in my complaint, DHS' posting was unconstitutional.
c. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision - As per the Legal Damages Act, Section 7 - Consequential Damages, I am entitled to seek Emotional Damages.

3. Violation Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The defense's claim that I claimed "DHS providing employment requirements is considered unconstitutional" is categorically false. Employment requirements on their own are not unconstitutional, nor was I trying to argue that. What those specific requirements are may very well be unconstitutional, which is what I was highlighting. I would also like to remind the defense that, as ruled in smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, "Every department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations." Quite rightly, the executive branch is held to a higher standard than private companies.

Furthermore, as I intend to highlight in discovery, DHS has issued another statement in response to the matter. If the Commonwealth truly believed this case was without merit, such a statement would not have been necessary.

I would also like to apologize for filing the case in the improper court to begin with. I believed Federal Court to be the appropriate setting, due to the questions of constitutionality raised in my complaint.

 

[ko531]

Good Evening, Your Honor,

I will be representing the Commonwealth in this matter...

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

The plaintiff has made a series of accusations against the Commonwealth with the posting of their case. The plaintiff has claimed that they have fallen victim to emotional distress due to an employment advertisement published by the Department of Homeland Security. The Commonwealth stipulates before the court that these claims are false and are of no legal standing before the court.

1. Violation Rule 5.12 (Lack of personal jurisdiction) - The plaintiff claiming they experience emotional distress on an announcement that is not directly addressed to them and made within a public setting is absurd.
2. Violation Rule 2.1 (Standing Application) - The plaintiff has not submitted an application that was denied using these standards, and thus, the plaintiff suffered no injury. With no injury, the plaintiff is not entitled to remedy and lacks standing to pursue this case.
3. Violation Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The plaintiff has claimed that the DHS providing employment requirements is considered unconstitutional. This is factually wrong as it’s the generalized right of employers to publish employment standards, and there is absolutely no verbiage within the Constitution that supports this claim for relief.

We also wish to request that the plaintiff be charged with a frivolous case should the court move forward with the dismissal. The Commonwealth finds it appalling to have to waste the court’s time, seeing that the plaintiff filed the case within the improper court to begin with.

Motion to dismiss is Sustained under rule 2.1 (Standing Application)

While the plaintiff may have experienced injury in the form of emotional damages, that injury was not against the law. The only claim of relief is that the speech in this announcement caused emotional damages and reputational loss. Speech of any kind could cause these damages and as speech is highly protected, for this case to continue, it would jeopardize a core constitutional right. Nothing in the complaint is alleging the speech to be illegal such as defamation, only that it caused harm and was unconstitutional.

Because speech is highly protected I must err on the side of caution, if there were any actions connected to this speech then it would become a problem which is why If there was anything else such as a denied application, this case likely would have standing. But since this case is only claiming damages on the speech, the injury is not against the law.


This case is dismissed with prejudice.