Lawsuit: Dismissed lcn v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 33

[Darklander]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lcn (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 7th of March of 2025, at 19h47 EST lcn, the Plaintiff, requested to be let go from their employment at the Department of Homeland Security, to which Secretary Intercepticon answered with an offer of becoming an Honorary Detective, a counteroffer that the Plaintiff declined.

At 1h10 EST on the 14th of March of 2025, the Plaintiff requested to be let go from their position for a second time. The request was denied by Secretary Intercepticon at 3h59 EST with the statement of “NO! You stay”. At 16h27 EST, Senate President CaseyLeFaye quoted §4(2) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act that describes the crime of Enslavement, to which Dep. Secretary Real42 responded with three nerd emojis, seemingly mocking Senate President CaseyLeFaye’s mentioning of the criminal nature of their refusal. After consulting with legal counsel, the Plaintiff was advised to submit a criminal complaint to the DOJ, which they did the 26th of March, at 23h56 EST, to which Attorney General Freeze_Line answered “You must stay” at 2h32 EST of the next day, echoing Secretary Intercepticon’s second refusal, without requesting any more information. At 13h11 EST, Attorney General Freeze_Line requested to close the ticket, with the reason stated as “You must stay”.

I. PARTIES
1. lcn
2. Secretary Intercepticon
3. Attorney General Freeze_Line
4. Deputy Secretary Real42

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff was prevented from leaving their job at the Department of Homeland Security by Homeland Security Secretary Intercepticon, which constitutes Enslavement.
2. Attorney General Freeze_Line refused to prosecute enslavement, with Attorney General Freeze_Line stating “You must stay” when this fact was brought to the DOJ, refusing to prosecute. They didn’t request any further information when the ticket was brought to them, simply affirming the actions of Secretary Intercepticon.
3. Deputy Secretary Real42 acknowledged that the refusal to release the Plaintiff from their employment constituted Enslavement under the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and mocked Senate President CaseyLeFaye for citing the relevant statute.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff was in involuntary servitude by the Department of Homeland Security by refusing to terminate their employment, violating §4(2) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act.
2. Officials of the Department of Homeland Security openly mocked the citing of the relevant legal statute, and by doing so acknowledged the criminality of the retention of the Plaintiff as an employee.
3. The Department of Justice refused to prosecute a criminal complaint, as is their duty under §8(1)(b) of the Executive Standards Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. As Injunctive Relief: A court order requiring the Defendant to relieve the Plaintiff from her Department of Homeland Security employment.
2. $30,000 in Punitive Damages from the Commonwealth - For the outrageous conduct from Homeland Security Secretary Intercepticon for refusing to terminate the Plaintiff's employment and engaging in Enslavement.
3. $30,000 in Punitive Damages from the Commonwealth - For the outrageous act of the Department of Justice of refusing to prosecute without even asking for further information, and affirming the “necessity” of the forced continuous employment, twice.
4. $10,000 in Consequential Damages from the Commonwealth - For the overall refusal to allow the Plaintiff to freely enjoy their time in Redmont instead of seeking to restore their ability to leave employment with the Commonwealth by their own free will, as this constitutes Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
5. $21,000 in Legal Fees for the time and effort of Dragon Law firm, per the Legal Damages Act.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P001

Spoiler: P002

Spoiler: P003

Witness List:
CaseyLeFaye
roryyy___

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 26th day of March 2025

 

[Darklander]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court order the Department of Justice to begin criminal prosecution proceedings against Intercepticon for Enslavement and against Real42 for Accessory to Enslavement, and the appointing of a neutral special prosecution or forced recusal of the Attorney General and delegation of prosecutorial power, as they have personally refused to prosecute as the evidence provided shows.


1. The Attorney General has already refused to prosecute in a manner that appears to the Plaintiffs to be either negligent or malicious.
2. The lack of prosecution of this complaint violates the Plaintiff's rights under §33 subsections (13) and (14) of the constitution, with the evidence showing that they have been given unequal protection by the Commonwealth

 

[juniperfig]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of lcn v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 33

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.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court order the Department of Justice to begin criminal prosecution proceedings against Intercepticon for Enslavement and against Real42 for Accessory to Enslavement, and the appointing of a neutral special prosecution or forced recusal of the Attorney General and delegation of prosecutorial power, as they have personally refused to prosecute as the evidence provided shows.


1. The Attorney General has already refused to prosecute in a manner that appears to the Plaintiffs to be either negligent or malicious.
2. The lack of prosecution of this complaint violates the Plaintiff's rights under §33 subsections (13) and (14) of the constitution, with the evidence showing that they have been given unequal protection by the Commonwealth

This motion is denied. The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm, not to seek punishment for harm that has already been committed.

 

[Darklander]

This motion is denied. The purpose of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm, not to seek punishment for harm that has already been committed.

Motion

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

The plaintiff moves to request that Your Honor reconsider the denial on the following bases:

1. The plaintiff's Emergency Injunction doesn't seek punishment but to stop the harms caused by violating the plaintiff's rights and equality under the law.
2. Leaving the responsibility of prosecuting or investigating our allegation to the Attorney General would constitute a Conflict of Interest, necessitating that a Special Counsel is appointed

 

[SumoMC]

The Commonwealth is present your honor.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

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

The plaintiff moves to request that Your Honor reconsider the denial on the following bases:

1. The plaintiff's Emergency Injunction doesn't seek punishment but to stop the harms caused by violating the plaintiff's rights and equality under the law.
2. Leaving the responsibility of prosecuting or investigating our allegation to the Attorney General would constitute a Conflict of Interest, necessitating that a Special Counsel is appointed

Motion denied. Once again, the Court does not see how this injunction would stop the alleged harm. Prosecuting a case—especially through a Special Counsel—takes time and doesn't guarantee that the harmful actions will end. Emergency injunctions are meant to stop immediate, ongoing harm. This just isn’t the right tool for that.

The Commonwealth is present your honor.

Thank you. Please file an Answer to Complaint in the next 48 hours.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Motion

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

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

1. The plaintiff did not properly reach out to the DHS leadership or the DOJ in this matter. They failed to formally and appropriately submit their request. They could have resigned in a professional manner and forwarded their concerns, rather than using the improper "fire me plz" message. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not forced to work even after making that unprofessional request. Even the Cambridge Dictionary defines "enslavement" as "the act of making a slave of someone." The plaintiff was never compelled to perform any work during this time and therefore could not possibly be considered a "working slave" of the department. The outrageous claim of enslavement does not apply to this case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application).

2. Secondly, the plaintiff attempts to personally prosecute the defendant for the alleged enslavement. As enslavement falls under indictable offenses, the plaintiff has no legal standing to prosecute on behalf of the Commonwealth. That authority lies solely with the Department of Justice. This case should therefore be dismissed under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

3. Finally, the core of this case revolves around speculation that the plaintiff was forced to work for the DHS and perform duties against their will, which is simply untrue. Once again, the plaintiff was not forced to do any work and did not even attempt to formally resign or request termination. The matter could have been resolved easily, but instead, the plaintiff chose to file a frivolous lawsuit as a cash grab. This lawsuit lacks valid standing and fails to demonstrate any actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. The only thing that stands is the fact that this case would never have existed had the plaintiff acted in a more professional and formal manner. Even so, it could have been resolved at any time, had the plaintiff wished to do so, instead of assuming the powers of the Department of Justice to file this baseless civil case. As there are no valid claims to support this lawsuit, it should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

The Commonwealth thanks everyone for their time.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

May I file an amicus brief?

 

[juniperfig]

May I file an amicus brief?

You may. Please file it in the next 24 hours.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Would it be possible to file it within 48 hours?

 

[juniperfig]

Would it be possible to file it within 48 hours?

There is a pending motion to dismiss. State the topic and your relevant qualifications and I may consider an extension.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

There is a pending motion to dismiss. State the topic and your relevant qualifications and I may consider an extension.

The topic is the application of slavery to various situations. I write this as a former representative, judge, and attorney general.

 

[juniperfig]

The topic is the application of slavery to various situations. I write this as a former representative, judge, and attorney general.

You may. You have 24 hours to submit the amicus brief.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

You may. You have 24 hours to submit the amicus brief.

Would it therefore be possible to request an extension to 48 hours?

 

[Darklander]

Motion

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

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

1. The plaintiff did not properly reach out to the DHS leadership or the DOJ in this matter. They failed to formally and appropriately submit their request. They could have resigned in a professional manner and forwarded their concerns, rather than using the improper "fire me plz" message. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not forced to work even after making that unprofessional request. Even the Cambridge Dictionary defines "enslavement" as "the act of making a slave of someone." The plaintiff was never compelled to perform any work during this time and therefore could not possibly be considered a "working slave" of the department. The outrageous claim of enslavement does not apply to this case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application).

2. Secondly, the plaintiff attempts to personally prosecute the defendant for the alleged enslavement. As enslavement falls under indictable offenses, the plaintiff has no legal standing to prosecute on behalf of the Commonwealth. That authority lies solely with the Department of Justice. This case should therefore be dismissed under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

3. Finally, the core of this case revolves around speculation that the plaintiff was forced to work for the DHS and perform duties against their will, which is simply untrue. Once again, the plaintiff was not forced to do any work and did not even attempt to formally resign or request termination. The matter could have been resolved easily, but instead, the plaintiff chose to file a frivolous lawsuit as a cash grab. This lawsuit lacks valid standing and fails to demonstrate any actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. The only thing that stands is the fact that this case would never have existed had the plaintiff acted in a more professional and formal manner. Even so, it could have been resolved at any time, had the plaintiff wished to do so, instead of assuming the powers of the Department of Justice to file this baseless civil case. As there are no valid claims to support this lawsuit, it should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

The Commonwealth thanks everyone for their time.

Your honor, may we respond to this motion?

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Amicus Brief

In this brief, I will be examining and providing insights into the applications of slavery to situations -- and specifically this situation -- as a former judge, representative, and attorney general. Let's start with definitions, according to law and the Oxford Dictionary. Enslavement is defined as, "The act of subjecting an individual to slavery, in all cases, or involuntary servitude, unless as a punishment for crime." Involuntary would be defined as, "done against someone's will; compulsory," being synonymous with coerced, and servitude as servanthood or slavery. In a real-life context, this would most notably refer to being bound to physically not leave servitude under the threat of physical harm. This, however, would not necessarily be applicable to this server, having commands such as /spawn, /warp, etc. It is therefore more useful to take it as coerced servitude, where there is coercion or threats resulting from not doing the servitude. This sets up two general legal criterion for this statute -- that the work is coerced (involuntary) and involving servitude (being bound to another as a servant or slave is). If I were to tell a person that they had to work for me, otherwise I would follow through on blackmail, kill them repeatedly, etc. that would likely fulfill the legal definition of this statute, seeing as I coerce or threaten them through reputational or physical harm, and that they are forced to work for me.

In this case, it is expected of Detectives in the Department of Homeland Security to work on cases. Being subject to expectations of your job against your will while simultaneously not being able to leave would fulfill our two criteria. The employee would be trapped in unfair expectations from their employer, which could be the government in this case, and these expectations constitute serving the government in a job, lest the employee does not do their job and is fired, putting their "failure" on record.

Thank you.

 

[xtub12345]

Your honor, I request to file an amicus brief.

 

[juniperfig]

Your honor, may we respond to this motion?

You may.

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Amicus Brief

In this brief, I will be examining and providing insights into the applications of slavery to situations -- and specifically this situation -- as a former judge, representative, and attorney general. Let's start with definitions, according to law and the Oxford Dictionary. Enslavement is defined as, "The act of subjecting an individual to slavery, in all cases, or involuntary servitude, unless as a punishment for crime." Involuntary would be defined as, "done against someone's will; compulsory," being synonymous with coerced, and servitude as servanthood or slavery. In a real-life context, this would most notably refer to being bound to physically not leave servitude under the threat of physical harm. This, however, would not necessarily be applicable to this server, having commands such as /spawn, /warp, etc. It is therefore more useful to take it as coerced servitude, where there is coercion or threats resulting from not doing the servitude. This sets up two general legal criterion for this statute -- that the work is coerced (involuntary) and involving servitude (being bound to another as a servant or slave is). If I were to tell a person that they had to work for me, otherwise I would follow through on blackmail, kill them repeatedly, etc. that would likely fulfill the legal definition of this statute, seeing as I coerce or threaten them through reputational or physical harm, and that they are forced to work for me.

In this case, it is expected of Detectives in the Department of Homeland Security to work on cases. Being subject to expectations of your job against your will while simultaneously not being able to leave would fulfill our two criteria. The employee would be trapped in unfair expectations from their employer, which could be the government in this case, and these expectations constitute serving the government in a job, lest the employee does not do their job and is fired, putting their "failure" on record.

Thank you.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to strike this breif from the record, this brief is nothing more than prejaditual towards the commonwealth. The plaintiff was not held against thier will, force to work or anything of the sort. The secretary of the department had just not got around to firirng them, this firvolus case should have never seen the light of day and neither should this breif.

 

[Darklander]

Motion

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

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

1. The plaintiff did not properly reach out to the DHS leadership or the DOJ in this matter. They failed to formally and appropriately submit their request. They could have resigned in a professional manner and forwarded their concerns, rather than using the improper "fire me plz" message. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not forced to work even after making that unprofessional request. Even the Cambridge Dictionary defines "enslavement" as "the act of making a slave of someone." The plaintiff was never compelled to perform any work during this time and therefore could not possibly be considered a "working slave" of the department. The outrageous claim of enslavement does not apply to this case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application).

2. Secondly, the plaintiff attempts to personally prosecute the defendant for the alleged enslavement. As enslavement falls under indictable offenses, the plaintiff has no legal standing to prosecute on behalf of the Commonwealth. That authority lies solely with the Department of Justice. This case should therefore be dismissed under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

3. Finally, the core of this case revolves around speculation that the plaintiff was forced to work for the DHS and perform duties against their will, which is simply untrue. Once again, the plaintiff was not forced to do any work and did not even attempt to formally resign or request termination. The matter could have been resolved easily, but instead, the plaintiff chose to file a frivolous lawsuit as a cash grab. This lawsuit lacks valid standing and fails to demonstrate any actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. The only thing that stands is the fact that this case would never have existed had the plaintiff acted in a more professional and formal manner. Even so, it could have been resolved at any time, had the plaintiff wished to do so, instead of assuming the powers of the Department of Justice to file this baseless civil case. As there are no valid claims to support this lawsuit, it should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

The Commonwealth thanks everyone for their time.

Response to Motion


Regarding point 1: The plaintiff requested to be fired to Secretary Intercepticon two different times, and it's important to note that in the code of conduct, or any other publicly accessible document, there is no "proper" request form. It is also notable that, as seen in P001, Intercepticon tried to negotiate the plaintiff's stay in the DHS. And the Defense's citation of the Cambridge Dictionary is improper, seeing as that per the Clarity Act, the Official Dictionary of the Commonwealth is the Oxford Dictionary, and the definition of Enslavement as defined in §4(2) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act would take precedence.

Regarding point 2: We are not prosecuting the Commonwealth on criminal charges, but rather attempting to move the Commonwealth to do their duties to criminal prosecution, and civil damages to compensate for the actions of the Commonwealth against the plaintiff. Claiming that the plaintiff is trying to engage in criminal prosecution is self-evidently incorrect.

Regarding point 3: What would even constitute to "formally request termination"? We do not have any proper answer to that question. What we do have is refusal by the DHS to take the request seriously, and then the DOJ refusing to take the complaint seriously, as seen in all three pieces of evidence that the Plaintiff provides the court. What is clear to us is that there is an implied compulsion in the refusal to let someone resign their post, even if they physically didn't stop the plaintiff from not working, which would be physically impossible for them to do, due to the nature of the server.


I thank the court for their attention.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

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

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

1. The plaintiff did not properly reach out to the DHS leadership or the DOJ in this matter. They failed to formally and appropriately submit their request. They could have resigned in a professional manner and forwarded their concerns, rather than using the improper "fire me plz" message. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not forced to work even after making that unprofessional request. Even the Cambridge Dictionary defines "enslavement" as "the act of making a slave of someone." The plaintiff was never compelled to perform any work during this time and therefore could not possibly be considered a "working slave" of the department. The outrageous claim of enslavement does not apply to this case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 (Standing Application).

2. Secondly, the plaintiff attempts to personally prosecute the defendant for the alleged enslavement. As enslavement falls under indictable offenses, the plaintiff has no legal standing to prosecute on behalf of the Commonwealth. That authority lies solely with the Department of Justice. This case should therefore be dismissed under Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction).

3. Finally, the core of this case revolves around speculation that the plaintiff was forced to work for the DHS and perform duties against their will, which is simply untrue. Once again, the plaintiff was not forced to do any work and did not even attempt to formally resign or request termination. The matter could have been resolved easily, but instead, the plaintiff chose to file a frivolous lawsuit as a cash grab. This lawsuit lacks valid standing and fails to demonstrate any actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. The only thing that stands is the fact that this case would never have existed had the plaintiff acted in a more professional and formal manner. Even so, it could have been resolved at any time, had the plaintiff wished to do so, instead of assuming the powers of the Department of Justice to file this baseless civil case. As there are no valid claims to support this lawsuit, it should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

The Commonwealth thanks everyone for their time.

Slavery, under the Miscellaneous Offences Act, is defined as the following:
The act of subjecting an individual to slavery, in all cases, or involuntary servitude, unless as a punishment for crime.

Slavery, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as the following:
The state of being a slave.

Slave, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as the following:
A person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person.

Nowhere in the Plaintiff’s complaint is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that she was forced to work, or subjected to conditions that meet this definition. What is described is a frustrating, bureaucratic failure to process her resignation, but not enslavement.

Accordingly, the Court agrees this case lacks a valid claim and is hereby dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

That said—and let this be noted clearly—the Department’s unwillingness to let someone quit is absolutely inexcusable. While it may not rise to the level of enslavement, it is a serious issue in professionalism and internal process. It should never have come to this point. Let people quit their jobs.

The Plaintiff must pay the defendant $18,200 in legal fees, equal to 20% of the value of the case.