Lawsuit: Adjourned Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17

[Goldendude15]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dr_Eksplosive (Represented by Dragon Law firm.)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The constitutional rights and freedoms of the Plaintiff were violated by the Department of Homeland Security. At 2:53pm on the 26th of January AEDT time, the Plaintiff was arrested by police officer and DHS secretary HellsideBurnton. After being arrested, the Plaintiff’s rights and reason for arrest were not read to the Plaintiff. HellsideBurnton then transported the Plaintiff to the police station then jail where the Plaintiff spent 40 minutes imprisoned. This is a clear and evident violation of the rights of the Plaintiff. It is crucial that the DHS, the department which enforces the laws of Redmont respect the law themselves. As a result of these unlawful actions of the DHS, the Plaintiff has suffered immense stress and anxiety because of how the DHS blatantly violated their core rights as a person.
I. Parties

1. Dr_Eksplosive (Plaintiff.)
2. HellsideBurnton (Agent of the Defendant.)
3. Department of Homeland Security (Defendant.)

II. Facts

1. Dr_Eksplosive was present at spawn engaging in conversation with fellow citizens. (P-001.)
2. At 2:53pm on the 26th of January AEDT time, Dr_Eksplosive was arrested at spawn by the Secretary of Homeland Security HellsideBurnton. (P-002.)
3. Immediately after being arrested, the Plaintiff was moved to the police station then Revcatraz and was given 40 minutes of jail time and fined $600. (P-003)
4. At no point during or after the arrest was the Plaintiff informed of the nature or cause of the accusation against them nor advised of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent or that anything said could be used as evidence against them.

III. Claims for Relief

1. Part 4 of the constitution, rights and freedoms outlines in right IX that “any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defense.” In this case, the Plaintiff was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. HellsideBurnton, the arresting officer, simply locked away the Plaintiff without giving any information about why they were being arrested, a clear violation of the fundamental right aforementioned.
2. The law further sets out in the Miranda Warning Act that “every citizen charged with an offense must: a. be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense. b. be advised, without unreasonable delay, that they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them.” Evidently in this case the plaintiff was not informed of the specific offense nor advised of their right to remain silent and the fact that anything they say can be used as evidence in court. By not reading the Plaintiff the Miranda rights, the DHS has clearly violated the law and the core rights of the plaintiff.
3. In accordance with §4-2(c) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offenses.” The Plaintiff's arrest and subsequent 40-minute imprisonment were unlawful, as no valid charges were presented or proven.

IV. Prayers for Relief

1. Punitive damages: $100,000: The Plaintiff seeks $100,000 from the Department of Homeland Security to discourage and prevent the DHS from committing the outrageous conduct of violating the constitutional rights of the citizens of Redmont under which they serve. The court must ensure such a gross miscarriage of justice never occurs again.
2. Consequential Damages: $70,000: The Plaintiff seeks $70,000 from the DHS as emotional damages. This amount is justified to address the emotional stress and severe anxiety inflicted upon the Plaintiff as a direct consequence of the violation of their enshrined rights and freedoms. It accounts for the distress and confusion experienced by the Plaintiff, stemming from the unjust arrest procedure applied by the DHS and how the Plaintiff had no way of knowing why they were being imprisoned.
3. Civil damages: $2,600: The plaintiff seeks $2,600 in civil damages as compensation for the 40 minutes spent in jail under §4-2(c) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act and a reimbursement for the fine of $600 under §4-2(c) of the aforementioned law.
4. Legal fees: $51,780: The Plaintiff seeks $51,780 to account for the legal services of Dragon Law firm at the 30% of case value cap.

V. Evidence

Spoiler: P-001

P-001

Spoiler: P-002

P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: Proof of representation

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 30th day of January 2025.

 

[Dartanboy]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General @Freeze_Line or another person who is legally qualified to represent the Commonwealth is hereby summoned to the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of DrEksplosive v Commonwealth of Redmont

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

I would like to make both parties aware that I technically began work on this case as the Solicitor General, however I am confident that I will remain unbiased throughout this case.

That said, I will voluntarily recuse if either party chooses to file a Motion to Recuse.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I would like to make both parties aware that I technically began work on this case as the Solicitor General, however I am confident that I will remain unbiased throughout this case.

That said, I will voluntarily recuse if either party chooses to file a Motion to Recuse.

For now the plaintiff sees no reason to have the presiding Judge recused.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defense has failed to appear. I hereby find the Department of Justice in Contempt of Court, and order the Department of Homeland Security to transfer the relevant fine from the DCGovernmentDOJ account to DCGovernment.

This case is now in recess awaiting a Default Judgement.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, I deeply apologize. The DoJ is highly underemployed, and the Commonwealth has 7 ongoing lawsuits.

This case completely slipped my mind, and I am deeply sorry for it. Would it be possible to still continue this case and ensure that justice is served properly?

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor, I deeply apologize. The DoJ is highly underemployed, and the Commonwealth has 7 ongoing lawsuits.

This case completely slipped my mind, and I am deeply sorry for it. Would it be possible to still continue this case and ensure that justice is served properly?

Mr. Attorney General, please use the proper forms of court filing such as an Objection or a Motion. Consider this your only warning.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Motion

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

The Defense has failed to appear. I hereby find the Department of Justice in Contempt of Court, and order the Department of Homeland Security to transfer the relevant fine from the DCGovernmentDOJ account to DCGovernment.

This case is now in recess awaiting a Default Judgement.

Your Honor, I deeply apologize. The DoJ is highly underemployed, and the Commonwealth has 7 ongoing lawsuits.

This case completely slipped my mind, and I am deeply sorry for it. Would it be possible to still continue this case and ensure that justice is served properly?

 

[Dartanboy]

I will allow the Plaintiff to respond to the Motion before I make a decision. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Motion

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


Your Honor, I deeply apologize. The DoJ is highly underemployed, and the Commonwealth has 7 ongoing lawsuits.

This case completely slipped my mind, and I am deeply sorry for it. Would it be possible to still continue this case and ensure that justice is served properly?

RESPONSE TO MOTION

The plaintiff believes that the court should continue with the summary judgement, as is standard court procedure. The defendant failed to appear in time, and thus it is standard for the court to issue a summary judgement, regardless of the defendant's reasoning or workload. Furthermore, doing so may actually be in the Commonwealth's best interest, seeing how overworked the DoJ appears to be. This is especially so given the straightforward nature of the situation in this case. The plaintiff urges the court to reach a decision based on the presented facts.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

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


Your Honor, I deeply apologize. The DoJ is highly underemployed, and the Commonwealth has 7 ongoing lawsuits.

This case completely slipped my mind, and I am deeply sorry for it. Would it be possible to still continue this case and ensure that justice is served properly?

Overruled. Ultimately, it "slipped my mind" is simply not a valid excuse to miss a deadline. I understand that the DoJ is underemployed and busy at the moment, but simply asking for an extension for these reasons would have been sufficient.

The Commonwealth failed to appear in time, and court procedure dictates a Summary Judgement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. Dr_Eksplosive was arrested without being informed of the nature or cause of the accusation against them nor advised of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent or that anything said could be used as evidence against them.
2. The Constitution requires a citizen to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
3. The Miranda Warning Act requires that a citizen be informed of their rights and also be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
4. Dr_Eksplosive should be compensated under the Standardized Criminal Code Act.
5. Dr_Eksplosive should be further compensated under the Legal Damages Act.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not appear before the court in due time.

III. THE COURT OPINION
The more I do legal work, the more I like long-form, SCR-style opinions, as opposed to the numbered lists. Since there is no requirement of doing a numbered list, I’ll provide the opinion SCR-style:

In this case, we have a Plaintiff who was arrested without being read their rights, nor being informed of the cause and nature of the accusation. With this, the court finds itself asking two questions: First, is this illegal? Secondly, if it is illegal, how much damages are warranted?

On Whether The Actions Were Illegal
Let’s begin with the first question, as if we discover these actions were not prohibited, or more extraordinarily expressly permitted, then this case is over. However, a quick look over the laws mentioned by the Plaintiff shows this is not the case. The Constitution does indeed require a citizen to be informed of the cause and nature of their accusation when accused of a crime. While there is often leeway in some of Right IX, such as allowing Summary Crimes to be punished without a trial (but still allowing for appeals of those charges), it has long been understood that one cannot be punished for a crime without regard to their right to know why they’re being charged. This is further evident in the Miranda Warning Act, which specifies in no uncertain terms that arrestees must be informed of the specific offense they are being arrested for as well as be informed of the right to remain silent. Without a doubt, the actions taken by the Commonwealth are certainly illegal.

On Damages
As we now understand that it is illegal to arrest someone without informing them why they’re under arrest, we must now address the damages. The Plaintiff requests $100,000 in Punitive Damages, $70,000 in Emotional Damages, $2,600 in Compensatory Damages (labeled as Civil Damages), and $51,780 in Legal Fees. For the purposes of this analysis, Legal Fees will be ignored as they are largely independent from the purpose of the case.

First off, I don’t see a valid argument to be compensated for jail time nor their fine. The Plaintiff failed to show, even in a balance of probabilities, that he did not commit a crime – only that he didn’t know what crime he was being punished for. That said, in this case, the Federal Court is not determining that a crime was committed, but that there is insufficient evidence in this case provided to determine that it was not – should the Plaintiff believe there was no crime committed, they may appeal the charges, jail time, and fines to the District Court.

Secondly, $70,000 in Emotional Damages is well beyond the legally permitted maximum of $50,000. Furthermore, according to the Legal Damages Act, Emotional Damages are for “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. Emotional damages may be proven by witness testimony, reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.” Although there is certainly some level of psychological harm due to being imprisoned without knowing why, there is again, no evidence provided that the Plaintiff didn’t commit a crime, and thus no evidence that the Plaintiff truly was blindsided by the arrest. This warrants some Emotional Damages, but nowhere near the amount requested.

Third, the Legal Damages Act requires that the presiding Judicial Officer “properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.” We are once again lacking evidence that no crime was committed, and thus, I’m not able to determine the “character of the defendant’s act” was malicious or extremely negligent, and the harm was relatively minimal overall. Once again, some Punitive Damages appear to be reasonable, however not the amount requested.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief:
1. $5,000 in Emotional Damages, for subjecting the Plaintiff to arrest without informing him of the cause.
2. $10,000 in Punitive Damages, for violating the Miranda Warning Act and Right IX of the Constitution

The total is $15,000, and I order the Department of Homeland Security to unfine the Plaintiff this amount.

I will also be issuing a Writ of Mandamus to the Department of Homeland Security to provide the Plaintiff with information regarding his arrest.

Court Order

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

The Department of Homeland Security shall:
1. Inform the Plaintiff the cause of his arrest.
2. Provide the Plaintiff with the evidence used for this arrest.

The Federal Court thanks all involved for their time. This case is adjourned.

 

[Dartanboy]

I apologize, I forgot to address legal fees. In cases of Default Judgement, I tend to go with 10% legal fees due to the sufficiently smaller amount of work. Thus, I also grant $1,500 in legal fees.