Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] DCR 12

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anthony

Moderator
Moderator
Justice Department
State Department
Legal Affairs Department
Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
xAntho_ny
xAntho_ny
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
411
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Town Of Oakridge
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On Feburary 18th, 2024, a bylaw named “The Really Really Boring Act” was made for the Town of Oakridge. A local crime called “Treason” was made and the description was “The Act of running /spawn-oakridge while having the username "GoldBlooded." The constitution states “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.” The Town of Oakridge broke Part IV of the Commonwealth of Redmont constitution


I. PARTIES
1.The Commonwealth of Redmont (Plaintiff)
2. The Town of Oakridge (Defendant)
3. zLost (Creator of the bylaw)

II. FACTS
1. The “The Really Really Boring Act” was created on Feburary 18th, 2024
2. A Local Crime called Treason was made and the description was “The Act of running /spawn-oakridge while having the username "GoldBlooded."
3. This breaks Part IV of the Commonwealth of Redmont constitution.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The “The Really Really Boring Act” breaks Part IV of the Constitution as all citizens have the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Strike “The Really Really Boring Act” as unconstitutional.

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 23rd day of March 2024
 
Due to the plaintiff asking for the act to be struck as unconstitutional, this is a case involving a question of constitutionality, and as defined in the Judicial Update Act questions of constitutionality, belong in the Federal Court, not the district court. This case will need to be refiled in the Federal Court, This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
The Court thanks everyone for their time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top