Lawsuit: Dismissed Plura72 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 29

[Plura72]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

Departament of Homeland Security
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Me was doing solicitor exam in university when police officer interception arrested me I lost $50 as I was not able to do my exam in jail and I paid for it, I lost a total of $50 in money that is 80% of all my money at the time, I peacefully messaged interception to give me $50 that he took from me, he didnt respond to me, I felt humiliated and emotionally damaged.

I. PARTIES

1. Plura72
2. Interception

II. FACTS

1. Plura72 was peacefully doing a solicitor exam
2. Interception arrested plura for murder x1
3. Plura72 lost $50
4. At the time $50 was 80% of plura's moeny
5. This huge monetary loss caused plura emotional damage and harm

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Interception arrested plura72 while he was doing a solicitor's exam
2. ...

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. 50$ in damages
2. The removal of interception from the DHS

Witness:
Interception
Plura72

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 9 day of april 2025

 

[KingBOB99878]

Your Honor,
I Wish to file a Amicus Breif

 

[ko531]

I am dismissing this case, Sua Sponte.

The issue of this case is all the damages were retroactively caused by the plaintiff. They went out and committed the crime of murder that got them arrested in the first place. Interception only did his job as a member of the DHS in arresting a criminal. It is not his job to make sure the person being arrested isn't doing an exam in which he has almost no metric of knowing.

The plaintiff by being wanted for murder and then going out to take an exam accepted the risk that they could be arrested and lose the money spent to take such exam. Whether or not this risk was fully grasped by the plaintiff is irrelevant as ignorance of the law does not make you immune to the law.

This finding by the court is also backed by precedent. As stated in The_Donuticus v. GER et al. [2022] SCR 18 "If one allows something to happen, they must pay the consequence of their actions (or lack thereof)." The plaintiff allowed this to happen as this could have been avoided in a multitude of ways. By their actions to ultimately put themselves in this situation, the plaintiff must now pay the consequences.


Case is dismissed with prejudice