Lawsuit: Pending Boomsides v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 11

Boomsides

Boomsides

Citizen
Joined
Jan 5, 2025
Messages
22

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Boomsides (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
As I reached the polling stations, one thing reached my eyes: a sign saying, "Big Brother is watching you." It was unsettling and created a sense of paranoia in a place where trust and privacy should be paramount. For the brief period, it felt less like a polling station-a place where citizens are empowered to freely express themselves-and more like an environment of surveillance. This insinuates to voters that their votes are being tracked, the impression with which not only longtime but also novice voters could be deeply disturbed by. A message which is more than off-putting, it questions the principles of a private and free vote, leaving citizens to question the integrity of the very process. I bring this matter forward not simply because the sign is unpleasant, but rather because it has no rightful place in an institution that is supposed to uphold the sanctity of democracy.

I. PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff: Boomsides, a concerned citizen and voter in Redmont.
  2. Defendant: The Commonwealth of Redmont, responsible for the management and regulation of polling places within its jurisdiction.
II. FACTS

  1. The Plaintiff observed a sign within the voting polls building that states, “Big Brother is watching you.”
  2. The sign creates the impression that voters’ privacy is compromised, leading to discomfort, particularly among new voters.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff asserts that the presence of this sign violates voters’ rights to privacy and constitutes intimidation within a government building, contrary to principles of fair electoral practices.

  1. Violation of the Right to Secret Ballot:
    The presence of the sign "Big Brother is watching you" infringes on the voters’ constitutional right to a secret ballot, as guaranteed under Part IV, §33, Point III of the Constitution. This right ensures that individuals can cast their votes without fear, intimidation, or undue influence. The sign’s implication of surveillance undermines this fundamental guarantee.
  2. Unequal Protection and Discrimination:
    Under Part IV, §33, Point XIII, the Constitution guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law to all citizens without unfair discrimination. The sign creates a hostile environment that disproportionately affects newer or less experienced voters, discouraging them from participating fully and equally in the democratic process.
  3. Failure to Uphold Electoral Integrity:
    Under The Electoral Act, Part II Point II which says “Election integrity should be at the forefront of our democratic system.” The Defendant’s inaction in removing the sign violates the constitutional mandate for Congress and government bodies to safeguard the integrity and impartiality of the electoral process. By allowing such an intimidating message in the polls building, the Defendant has breached their duty to maintain a welcoming and unbiased environment, as required to ensure fair elections.
  4. Intimidation and Violation of Security Rights:
    The Constitution, under Part IV, §33, Point XIV, guarantees the right to liberty and security of the person. The sign’s implied surveillance creates an intimidating and oppressive environment, deterring individuals from voting freely and securely. This violates the principles of democratic freedom and personal security inherent in the electoral process.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

  1. An order from the court mandating the removal of the sign reading “Big Brother is watching you” from all polling locations.
  2. A public acknowledgment by the Defendant to voters affirming their privacy and addressing the implications of the sign.
  3. $20,000 in punitive damages to penalize the Defendant for maintaining the presence of the sign despite its intimidating and harmful nature, and to deter similar conduct in the future.
  4. $6,000 in legal fees incurred by the Plaintiff in pursuing this case.
WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

  1. Witnesses: The Plaintiff and other voters who were present at the polling place.
  2. Evidence:
    2025-01-26_11.31.19.png
    2025-01-26_11.30.55.png
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 26th day of January, 2025

Boomsides
Dragon Law

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Boomsides v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 11

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.

 
Your Honor, the Commonwealth is present.
 

Motion


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

Your Honor, this case has absolutely no merit and serves only to waste everyone’s time. The claims are extremely exaggerated and amount to nothing more than a cash grab to steal money from the government under the guise of addressing a non-existent issue. We have conducted elections for years without any complaints about voter privacy. Now, the plaintiff is alleging that the interior design of the state building, where voting takes place, somehow undermines his privacy when voting.

This is absurd. If the plaintiff genuinely had an issue with this, they could have raised it with the Department of State to suggest changes to the building’s interior, perhaps the removal of the iconic “Big Brother Is Watching You” sign. Instead, the plaintiff seized this as an opportunity to sue the government for an outrageous amount and profit from it. To make matters worse, the plaintiff is representing themselves “on behalf of a law firm they hired” solely to extract legal fees.

Your Honor, the plaintiff is representing themselves and is only seeking legal fees to further profit from the government. If they truly have an issue, they should file a complaint with the Department of State, not burden the court with a frivolous lawsuit and attempt to paint the government as a privacy violator. The plaintiff also alleges that the sign causes “discomfort, particularly among new voters.” However, we have never received any such complaints, and the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence or even a list of individuals who feel discomforted or that their privacy has been compromised.

The plaintiff has failed to include all relevant parties in this case, and as outlined in Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party):

“A Motion to Dismiss can be filed for the plaintiff’s failure to join all appropriate parties to the case.”

Your Honor, no rights have been violated in this case. Would the plaintiff sue someone for merely standing inside the building during voting, claiming it compromises their privacy? A sign or a decorative element of the building’s interior does not compromise privacy. The plaintiff has no valid claim in this case, and therefore, it should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim):

“A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.”

The plaintiff has no valid claims for relief and should not be awarded monetary compensation for these baseless accusations. The defendant respectfully urges the court to dismiss this case in its entirety and consider charging the plaintiff with filing a frivolous lawsuit to discourage the submission of meritless claims aimed solely at financial gain.

 
Freeze_Line said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, this case has absolutely no merit and serves only to waste everyone’s time. The claims are extremely exaggerated and amount to nothing more than a cash grab to steal money from the government under the guise of addressing a non-existent issue. We have conducted elections for years without any complaints about voter privacy. Now, the plaintiff is alleging that the interior design of the state building, where voting takes place, somehow undermines his privacy when voting.

This is absurd. If the plaintiff genuinely had an issue with this, they could have raised it with the Department of State to suggest changes to the building’s interior, perhaps the removal of the iconic “Big Brother Is Watching You” sign. Instead, the plaintiff seized this as an opportunity to sue the government for an outrageous amount and profit from it. To make matters worse, the plaintiff is representing themselves “on behalf of a law firm they hired” solely to extract legal fees.

Your Honor, the plaintiff is representing themselves and is only seeking legal fees to further profit from the government. If they truly have an issue, they should file a complaint with the Department of State, not burden the court with a frivolous lawsuit and attempt to paint the government as a privacy violator. The plaintiff also alleges that the sign causes “discomfort, particularly among new voters.” However, we have never received any such complaints, and the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence or even a list of individuals who feel discomforted or that their privacy has been compromised.

The plaintiff has failed to include all relevant parties in this case, and as outlined in Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party):

“A Motion to Dismiss can be filed for the plaintiff’s failure to join all appropriate parties to the case.”

Your Honor, no rights have been violated in this case. Would the plaintiff sue someone for merely standing inside the building during voting, claiming it compromises their privacy? A sign or a decorative element of the building’s interior does not compromise privacy. The plaintiff has no valid claim in this case, and therefore, it should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim):

“A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.”

The plaintiff has no valid claims for relief and should not be awarded monetary compensation for these baseless accusations. The defendant respectfully urges the court to dismiss this case in its entirety and consider charging the plaintiff with filing a frivolous lawsuit to discourage the submission of meritless claims aimed solely at financial gain.

Click to expand...
Plaintiff requests a response, your honor
 
The plaintiff may respond within 48 hours.
 
We will begin discovery for the next 72 hours at this time. Please promptly present your witness lists and any evidence. Discovery may be cut short if both parties agree.

The plaintiff still has around 41 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
 
Your Honor,

I, Boomsides, respectfully submit this response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. For the following reasons, I urge the court to reject the motion.

There is a seriousness to my claims that may not be ignored. The Defendant’s argument that my concerns are baseless misses the point. The sign saying “Big Brother is watching you” at the polling station isn’t just decoration. It sends a chilling message. Voting should be private and free from intimidation, but the presence of this sign creates doubt and discomfort. Dismissing this as "absurd" is dismissing the legitimate concerns of voters. The argument that the Attorney General has to this claim is at best a "nuh-uh." His claims that my prayers are made up are false, and this motion is a last-ditch effort to save the Commonwealth from paying for the damages it has caused.
Motivation Behind the Case The Defendant’s claim that this is a "cash grab" is untrue. This case is about ensuring elections are fair and free from undue influence. The damages I’m seeking are appropriate given the harm caused by the sign’s intimidating message. I’m simply asking the court to protect voter rights. I also, specifically did not ask for emotional damages, so as not to make the appearance of a cash grab. I asked for punitive damages, so as only to punish the Commonwealth for having these signs for so long.
There are also violations that can’t be ignored The Defendant’s motion completely overlooks EVERY key issue I raised:
The Right to a Secret Ballot: The sign undermines confidence in voter privacy, which is a cornerstone of democracy.
Equal Treatment of Voters: The sign’s intimidating tone particularly impacts new voters, making them feel unwelcome or watched.
Election Integrity: By allowing the sign to stay, the Defendant fails in their duty to maintain a fair and impartial voting environment.
Response to Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party): The Defendant claims I didn’t include all necessary parties. However, the Commonwealth of Redmont oversees polling locations and is fully responsible for the sign. The Department of State (DOS) is a part of the Commonwealth, and historically, lawsuits have been brought against the Commonwealth itself, rather than specific agencies. The Defendant’s argument that I failed to include a party is therefore baseless. If they believe additional parties should be involved, it is their responsibility to raise that issue, not mine. Just because voters are too scared to speak up about this issue doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, this disproportionately affects new voters, as I stated before, and as went uncontested. New voters are not likely to bring a court case against a government they are unfamiliar with or scared of. This is combined with a poll that I took under petitions, where a majority of people voted aye to removing the signs.
Response to Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim): The Defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support my claims. However, this case is grounded in constitutional rights and election laws, which clearly protect the right to a secret ballot, equal treatment of voters, and election integrity. My claims are supported by observations, voter feedback, and legal principles. The Defendant’s assertion that this is merely a disagreement over interior design fails to acknowledge the broader implications of the sign’s message.
The precedent dismissing this case would set is disastrous. Ignoring this issue would discourage people from speaking out when something feels wrong at the polls.
Response to legal fees, I work at a law firm where my colleagues and I collaborate on legal matters. Their time is valuable and not freely available. This case is being brought forward after careful consideration of its merits and the implications for voter rights. Suggesting that this is a mere attempt at financial gain disregards the effort and resources my colleagues and I have invested and will invest in addressing this significant issue.

I respectfully ask the court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This case addresses critical issues about voter rights and election integrity. I am prepared to present evidence and arguments at trial to support my claims.
 
Could the plaintiff please provide proof of representation within 24 hours?
 
The plaintiff is to answer this question within 24 hour:
1. What are the locations of the signs and playerheads in question in the building?
 
The signs and playerheads are located:

1. To the right upon entry, then on the left before entering the voting room.

2. To the left upon entry, then on the left above head level.
 
2. Who is the party the plaintiff alleges is the subject of the sign?

Plaintiff, please answer within 24 hours.
 
Boomsides said:
Voters, as it is in a public space, specifically meant for voting.
Click to expand...
3. So to be clear, "BIG BROTHER" is voters? Or something/someone else listed as a party in this case?

I apologize for any confusion, you will again have 24 hours.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
3. So to be clear, "BIG BROTHER" is voters? Or something/someone else listed as a party in this case?

I apologize for any confusion, you will again have 24 hours.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I am alleging that “Big Brother” refers to the government/ people running the vote.
 
Boomsides said:
I apologize, I am alleging that “Big Brother” refers to the government/ people running the vote.
Click to expand...
4. What do you allege the sign represents, including that the government is "watching"? In other words, the government is watching what?

Again, 24 hours.
 
The sign is representing a watching of votes from “Big Brother.” It implies that the voters vote is not a private one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top