Lawsuit: Dismissed Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 110

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dartanboy
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Good day, your honor.

The Congress of Redmont is attempting to pass an unconstitutional bill, particularly the Gamblers' Protection Act (Bill: Vote - Gamblers' Protection Act).

This Bill is Unconstitutional due to the invasive nature of the crime created by the bill. Particularly, Redmontians are guaranteed the "right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure" by the Constitution, Part IV, Section 33, Clause XV.

It is the belief of the Plaintiff that this overly invasive law exceeds the Reasonable Limits clause and renders it Unconstitutional.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION REQUEST
The Plaintiff requests an Emergency Injunction preventing the Gamblers' Protection Act from being enforced for the duration of this lawsuit, if it passes.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanboy
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Gamblers' Protection Act includes a clause that states: "Gaming machines must have all redstone circuits accessible and visible" (Bill: Vote - Gamblers' Protection Act)
2. This requires anyone who creates a Gaming machine, such as the ones I have made in the past and have intentions of creating in the future, to provide unobstructed access to areas on their private property. This gives the Government a way to search portions of individuals' private properties without a warrant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By forcing any part of a private property to be publicly accessible, the bill directly violates the Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Gamblers' Protection Act be struck as Unconstitutional.
2. $2,500 in Nominal Damages.

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 24th day of July 2024.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Dr_Eksplosive (AG) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dartanboy v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Emergency Injunction is denied. In this specific case, I will not interfere with the legislative process by blocking a bill before it is signed by the President. If the bill passes and becomes law, you may request an injunction at that time if you still find it necessary.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Emergency Injunction is denied. In this specific case, I will not interfere with the legislative process by blocking a bill before it is signed by the President. If the bill passes and becomes law, you may request an injunction at that time if you still find it necessary.

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

Your honor,

There is no request to interfere with the legislative process, only the executive enforcement of the law if it passes.

This is to prevent harm from coming to any and all makers of gaming machines.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The motion to reconsider is denied. The request is premature, as the law in question has not yet been passed and signed. Judicial review is appropriately applied to enacted laws, not pending legislation. The claims of harm presented by the plaintiff are speculative at this stage. The court requires concrete evidence of harm or immediate threat before granting such motions. Since the bill is not yet law, the alleged harm remains hypothetical. Adequate remedies will be available to the plaintiff if the bill becomes law. Should constitutional issues arise from its enforcement, the plaintiff can seek appropriate judicial relief at that time.

 

[Dartanboy]

The motion to reconsider is denied. The request is premature, as the law in question has not yet been passed and signed. Judicial review is appropriately applied to enacted laws, not pending legislation. The claims of harm presented by the plaintiff are speculative at this stage. The court requires concrete evidence of harm or immediate threat before granting such motions. Since the bill is not yet law, the alleged harm remains hypothetical. Adequate remedies will be available to the plaintiff if the bill becomes law. Should constitutional issues arise from its enforcement, the plaintiff can seek appropriate judicial relief at that time.

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

Your honor, the purpose of an Emergency Injunction is to prevent harm, not reverse harm, according to the Court Orders guide.

The Emergency Injunction simply cannot wait until the bill passes, as at that point citizens may have been unjustly fined and had their criminal records tainted with a crime that wasn't illegal in the first place.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Dart, you are out of line. A motion to reconsider may only be made once per issue, and you have presented no new facts. I evaluated your request for an Emergency Injunction and determined there is no need for it at this stage. We are not preemptively preventing harm; the bill has not yet passed, and therefore, there is no harm to prevent. If the bill passes, you may request your EI at that time.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

As many have noted, I am leaving DC. This case is evidently an uphill battle as the Judge is ignoring the purpose of an Emergency Injunction and failing to adhere to the principles of justice outlined in the Constitution.

It's simply not worth the effort as I won't be receiving any benefit.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Dart, you are hereby held in contempt. Your attacking political remarks will not be tolerated in my courtroom. Your motion is granted.