Lawsuit: Adjourned BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 88

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nacho

Nacho

Manager
Manager
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Oakridge Resident
Staff Impeached Presidential Commendation Order of Redmont
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
1,109
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We request the court to freeze the plot mentioned below from being sold or held by the government in any capacity and restrict the commonwealth's ability to evict future plots in the same manner.

Emergency injunctions are designed to prevent further harm. In this case, the Town of Oakridge, in an act of misconduct, initiated an illegal eviction without proper notification or report through the Department of Construction and Transportation, as required by law.

We request that the court freeze the following plots and hold them in the possession of the DCGovernmentDCT account: OR-VALLEY-15

Due to the nature of this request, we will be filing our formal case shortly. But request the court to grant this injunction again.
 
The Emergency Injunction is granted in its entirety. In property cases, it is important to freeze the property when there is a claim to prevent potential damage to either party.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


BoopingBerry (Nacholebraa representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On 6/11/24, BoopingBerry, my client, received a notification from the Mayor of Oakridge, Yeet_Boy, informing her that the DCT would shortly evict the plot OR-VALLEY-15 due to violating building regulations. The town of Oakridge, specifically Mayor Yeet-Boy, acted outside of their authority to act on the eviction report.

Within the Property Standards Act, including the Oakridge Building Regulation bylaws, no mention of OR-VALLEY-15 is mentioned to qualify for a violation of ‘Plot Limitations’ within the Property Standards Act or in violation of section 9 of the Oakridge Building Regulations. My client is innocent of committing any building regulations. However, I am a victim of a targeted effort to harm the legitimacy of my client. A deliberate effort to inflict financial damage to my client, an innocent and laid-back resident of Oakridge.


I. PARTIES
1. BoopingBerry
2. Yeet_Boy (Mayor of Oakridge)
3. The_Superior10 (Inspection Manager DCT)
4. Town of Oakridge

II. FACTS
1. 6/11/24 - Yeet_Boy notified BoopingBerry that their property would be evicted for violating building regulations.
2. 6/11/24 - Yeet_Boy took claim of BoopingBerry’s plot or-valley-15
3. No eviction report was filed by the Department of Construction and Transportation before the eviction was actioned.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Punitive Damages—The property was stripped from the plaintiff's possessions with the improper procedure being followed.
2. Jurisdictional Power Violation—The town of Oakridge does not have the authority to evict properties; only the Department of Construction and Transportation can.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Striking the ability for Oakridge and other local jurisdictions from being able to action eviction reports.
2. $100,000 - Punitive Damages // The town of Oakridge's conduct was outrageous regarding the out-of-nowhere removal of the plaintiff's plots without messaging them prior to the removal.
3. $25,000 in legal fees.
4. Property or-valley-15 be returned to the plaintiff

Note: We intend to upload evidence of the alleged actions within the discovery.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement.

DATED: This 11 day of June 2024
 
Seal_Judiciary.png



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

@YeetBoy1872325 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge. 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.​
 
estoy presente
 
Please submit your response to the complaint within the specified timeframe.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

BoopingBerry
Plaintiff

V.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1) The defense affirms all facts

DEFENSES

1) As per Executive Order - Executive Order 5/24 - Local Governance, all towns have the authority over, "Plot evictions within town jurisdiction (facilitated by town government, actioned by the DCT)."

2) The DCT was not required to file a report for the type of eviction in this situation. As per the Oakridge Property Standards Act, there is a specific process for Plot Limits violations: (the type of regulation which BoopingBerry was in violation of) "Going over the plot limitations will result in an immediate eviction from plots until the limit is reached. Each eviction will also come with a $500 fine." The immediate eviction of the plot was made in accordance with Oakridge building regulations, as BoopingBerry was in possession of two or-valley plots (or-valley-01, and or-valley-15), which is not allowed by the Oakridge building regulations.

3) Despite not being required to, Oakridge notified the plaintiff far in advance of the eviction. After the Oakridge Property Standards act was passed, Mayor Yeet_Boy made an announcement informing every member of the Oakridge discord (which included BoopingBerry) of the new building regulations, as well as giving any player who violated the plot limits before the passing of the Oakridge Property Standards Act, the opportunity to request an exemption from their plot limit violations. BoopingBerry did not use this opportunity to request an exemption to their limits, despite being eligible to do so. Therefore, they were evicted following Oakridge's regulations.

4) Regarding the claim of the Jurisdictional Power Violation:
"Jurisdictional Power Violation—The town of Oakridge does not have the authority to evict properties; only the Department of Construction and Transportation can."

The Town of Oakridge itself did not action the eviction. Every eviction made that day was actioned by the DCT, after discussion with the department about Oakridge's new regulations and a list of current plot violations. Therefore, the Town of Oakridge still acted in accordance with the Executive Order mentioned in Defense 1.
 
We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.
 
Your Honor,

We want to enter the following into evidence.
 

Attachments

  • p-001.PNG
    p-001.PNG
    56.6 KB · Views: 143
  • p-002.PNG
    p-002.PNG
    23.6 KB · Views: 137
  • p-003.PNG
    p-003.PNG
    38.2 KB · Views: 112
  • p-004.PNG
    p-004.PNG
    51.3 KB · Views: 119
  • p-005.png
    p-005.png
    26.8 KB · Views: 119
Your Honor,

We would like to enter the following list of individuals to be our witnesses.

1. Yeet_Boy (Plaintiff)
2. TheSuperior (Inspection Manager in the DCT)
 
Given Discovery is now over, we will be moving onto Opening Statements.
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
your honor,

I’d like to request a two hour extension I got held up at a family event, saying goodbye to my aunt before she flew home. I may be within the next hour. I sadly don’t have access to my computer.
 
Opening Statements

Your Honor,

Today, I stand to defend not just the rights of my client, BoopingBerry, but the very principles of fairness and justice in our community. BoopingBerry is a dedicated and peace-loving resident of Oakridge, who has always adhered to the rules and contributed positively to the town. On the fateful day of June 11, 2024, BoopingBerry received a notification from the Mayor of Oakridge, Yeet_Boy, informing her that the Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT) would shortly evict her from her plot, OR-VALLEY-15, citing a violation of building regulations.

Imagine the shock and confusion BoopingBerry felt, being suddenly accused of breaking rules she had meticulously followed. Imagine the distress of facing an unjust eviction from her home, a place she had invested time, effort, and money into, believing in the promise of a peaceful and fair community. This abrupt and unfounded action by the town's leadership not only threatened her residence but also her peace of mind and financial stability.

Now, let’s discuss the laws at the heart of this matter. The Property Standards Act and the Oakridge Building Regulation bylaws clearly stipulate plot limitations and building regulations. These laws maintain order and fairness in our community, ensuring everyone follows the same standards.

However, in the case of BoopingBerry, these laws have been grievously misapplied. Specifically, there is no mention of OR-VALLEY-15 violating any plot limitations outlined in the Property Standards Act or Section 9 of the Oakridge Building Regulations. BoopingBerry’s plot does not qualify for any violation, and this has been a clear oversight or deliberate misinterpretation by the town’s officials.

In this case, we will present compelling evidence that the eviction notice served to BoopingBerry was unjustified and an overreach of authority by Mayor Yeet_Boy and the DCT. We will show that this eviction was a targeted effort to harm BoopingBerry’s legitimacy and inflict financial damage upon her despite her adherence to all relevant regulations.

You will hear testimonies from witnesses who can attest to BoopingBerry’s compliance with the town’s building codes and her positive standing in the community.

Our goal in this case is to demonstrate that the actions taken by the Town of Oakridge and its Mayor were not just incorrect but unjust. We will show you that BoopingBerry is an innocent, law-abiding resident who was wrongfully targeted.

By the end of this trial, you will see that justice demands the reversal of this eviction and the restoration of BoopingBerry’s rights. We seek not only to clear her name but to send a clear message that such abuses of power will not be tolerated in our community.

Thank you for your attention, and I trust that the evidence we present will lead you to the only just conclusion: that BoopingBerry’s eviction was unfounded and must be overturned.
 
The Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
Your Honor,

Respectfully the time has come and gone and the defendant has failed to provide their response. We request a that we progress this case.
 
The Defendant is hereby held in contempt. We will now move on to witness testimony.
 
1712719404002.png



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

@YeetBoy1872325 and @The_Superior10 is required to appear before the court in the case of BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.
​
 
Im present
 
Present
 
@Nacho You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to either both witnesses or one at a time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.
 
Yeet_Boy (@YeetBoy1872325 )
1. Are you currently employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation?
2. What are your relations to the Department of Construction and Transportation?


The_Superior10 (@The_Superior10 )
1. What is your current Department of Construction and Transportation role?
2. What is an Eviction Report?
3. Can you please explain the current process for evictions in detail? Specifically to the stages a Building Inspector would take to process one of these reports.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure.

Opposing counsel has missed their 24 hour deadline to post questions, and no extension requests were made. The defense asks that you charge opposing counsel with Contempt of Court, instruct the witnesses to disregard the questions asked by the opposition, and move witness testimonies into cross examination
 
Response to Objection

Your Honor,

We merely got out days confused in posting our response as I, in my head, firmly believed we had 48 hours to publish the questions to the witnesses. However, now looking back I realize I was gravely mistaken. I accept the contempt charge as I fully acknowledge the tardiness to this court.

However, we strongly request 2 options: either throwing out our witnesses as a whole or allowing our questioning of the witnesses to resume. If you permit the defense to question the witnesses, it would be unfair, as the defense has seen our questions and the pivoting from which we intended to seek a response.
 
Sustained. Nacho is hereby held in contempt. I will allow the witnesses to answer the questions. Please respond, @YeetBoy1872325 and @The_Superior10 , within the next 24 hours.
 
Here are my answers to the questions directed to me:

1. As of now, my roles within the Department of Construction and Transportation are both the Inspection Manager and Building Inspector positions.
2. An eviction report is a report that a Building Inspector fills on the forums to report a region to be evicted for being in violation of certain building regulations or for being under the playtime requirements set to ensure activity within the city.
3. The process starts with a Building Inspector finding a plot in violation either by themself or someone reports it to them (in that case the Inspector has to make sure the plot is really in violation) and proceeds to make sure that the region doesn't have an active report and that the owner of the plot doesn't have an exemption granted by the DCT, then the Inspector fills the report on the forums, includes evidence and specifies the eviction date depending on the type of report. When the eviction date comes the Inspection Manager checks if the report has been solved by the owner or not, if not either evicts the plot and marks it with the "Auction Required" tag or for other report reasons, pays the Inspector and marks the report with the "Staff Action" tag for staff to vault the plot and set it up for sale in-game. These are the steps that are normally taken before the eviction of a plot.
 
Nacho said:
Yeet_Boy (@YeetBoy1872325 )
1. Are you currently employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation?
2. What are your relations to the Department of Construction and Transportation?


The_Superior10 (@The_Superior10 )
1. What is your current Department of Construction and Transportation role?
2. What is an Eviction Report?
3. Can you please explain the current process for evictions in detail? Specifically to the stages a Building Inspector would take to process one of these reports.
Click to expand...
1. No.

2. As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me).
 
The_Superior10 said:
Here are my answers to the questions directed to me:

1. As of now, my roles within the Department of Construction and Transportation are both the Inspection Manager and Building Inspector positions.
2. An eviction report is a report that a Building Inspector fills on the forums to report a region to be evicted for being in violation of certain building regulations or for being under the playtime requirements set to ensure activity within the city.
3. The process starts with a Building Inspector finding a plot in violation either by themself or someone reports it to them (in that case the Inspector has to make sure the plot is really in violation) and proceeds to make sure that the region doesn't have an active report and that the owner of the plot doesn't have an exemption granted by the DCT, then the Inspector fills the report on the forums, includes evidence and specifies the eviction date depending on the type of report. When the eviction date comes the Inspection Manager checks if the report has been solved by the owner or not, if not either evicts the plot and marks it with the "Auction Required" tag or for other report reasons, pays the Inspector and marks the report with the "Staff Action" tag for staff to vault the plot and set it up for sale in-game. These are the steps that are normally taken before the eviction of a plot.
Click to expand...
Follow Up Questions
  1. Who has the authority to report plots within the DCT?
  2. Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?
  3. Does DCT policy mandate that BIs need to report the plots on the forums and send mail in-game?
 
YeetBoy1872325 said:
1. No.

2. As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me).
Click to expand...
Objection - Nothing Pending

Your Honor,

The answer to question 2 goes way outside the scope and the simple response of the question. We request that the response outside of the specific answer be struck.

"As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me)."

Should your honor not feel as striking just a portion of the response, we request that the whole response be struck and the witness be compelled to re-answer the question and keep it to just the scope of the question.
 
YeetBoy1872325 said:
1. No.

2. As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me).
Click to expand...
Follow Up Questions
  1. You have indicated to the court that you are not a DCT employee. Can you please explain why you messaged my client on 6/11/24 informing them of an eviction of their plot? Please reference (P-005).
  2. Did you or the DCT decide to evict plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?
  3. What was the reason for the reporting of plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?
 
Nacho said:
Follow Up Questions
  1. Who has the authority to report plots within the DCT?
  2. Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?
  3. Does DCT policy mandate that BIs need to report the plots on the forums and send mail in-game?
Click to expand...
1. Building Inspectors are those who have the authority to file reports on the forums.
2. No, the mayor just has the authority to inform us of plots in violation (to facilitate the process) like any other citizen can report violations to a Building Inspector.
3. The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums, and sending mail is part of that. There is no policy that directly mandates reports are always needed before eviction (to my knowledge).
 
The_Superior10 said:
1. Building Inspectors are those who have the authority to file reports on the forums.
2. No, the mayor just has the authority to inform us of plots in violation (to facilitate the process) like any other citizen can report violations to a Building Inspector.
3. The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums, and sending mail is part of that. There is no policy that directly mandates reports are always needed before eviction (to my knowledge).
Click to expand...
Follow Up Questions
  1. Does the DCT validate the reports before evicting them, or does it merely take the mayor's word and take action against them?
  2. Your response to question 3 states, "The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums." However, in your second part, you state just the opposite. Can you please clarify if there is or if there is not a policy outlining that Building Inspectors are required to submit the reports to the forums.
 
Nacho said:
Follow Up Questions
  1. You have indicated to the court that you are not a DCT employee. Can you please explain why you messaged my client on 6/11/24 informing them of an eviction of their plot? Please reference (P-005).
  2. Did you or the DCT decide to evict plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?
  3. What was the reason for the reporting of plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?
Click to expand...
1. Because I wanted to inform the person being evicted that their plot would be evicted soon, since I had reported the plot to the DCT.
2. I am not sure what that means, if you mean deciding to report for eviction, that was me. If you mean physically actioning the eviction, that was DCT.
3. It violated the Oakridge Property Standards Act; BoopingBerry was in possession of or-valley-01 and or-valley-15, and the limit for or-valley plots (which are defined as residential plots in the Oakridge Property Standards Act) is only 1.
 
Nacho said:
Follow Up Questions
  1. Does the DCT validate the reports before evicting them, or does it merely take the mayor's word and take action against them?
  2. Your response to question 3 states, "The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums." However, in your second part, you state just the opposite. Can you please clarify if there is or if there is not a policy outlining that Building Inspectors are required to submit the reports to the forums.
Click to expand...
1. The DCT has to always validate reports before evicting.
2. I was not sure what you meant by the question, if BIs are required to fill reports as part of their job or if a report is always required to be filled by a building inspector before eviction of a report, so I answered both. Again, it isn't clear what you mean by your question. Building Inspectors are required to submit eviction reports on the forums as it is the main part of their job, but no there isn't a policy/law (to my knowledge) directly implying a Building Inspector is always required to fill a report on the forums (sending mail being part of that) before a plot is evicted.
 
YeetBoy1872325 said:
1. Because I wanted to inform the person being evicted that their plot would be evicted soon, since I had reported the plot to the DCT.
2. I am not sure what that means, if you mean deciding to report for eviction, that was me. If you mean physically actioning the eviction, that was DCT.
3. It violated the Oakridge Property Standards Act; BoopingBerry was in possession of or-valley-01 and or-valley-15, and the limit for or-valley plots (which are defined as residential plots in the Oakridge Property Standards Act) is only 1.
Click to expand...
Follow Up Questions
  1. Do you message every individual being evicted that their plot will be evicted and not mention that you are not a part of the DCT?
  2. Under what authority do you have the ability to determine what properties are reported versus not being reported?
  3. Did the property that was evicted get adjusted in any shape or form following the eviction?
  4. Does Oakridge utilize eviction reports to benefit public works programs?
 
Nacho said:
Follow Up Questions
  1. Do you message every individual being evicted that their plot will be evicted and not mention that you are not a part of the DCT?
  2. Under what authority do you have the ability to determine what properties are reported versus not being reported?
  3. Did the property that was evicted get adjusted in any shape or form following the eviction?
  4. Does Oakridge utilize eviction reports to benefit public works programs?
Click to expand...
1. I believe so.
2. The authority of the Oakridge Property Standards Act. I report plots in violation of that law to the DCT.
3. No.
4. Unsure of what is meant by public works programs. But we don't evict plots for any reason other than violating the Oakridge Property Standards Act - if we want to build something else in place of a plot, then eminent domaining would be the necessary process.
 
The_Superior10 said:
1. The DCT has to always validate reports before evicting.
2. I was not sure what you meant by the question, if BIs are required to fill reports as part of their job or if a report is always required to be filled by a building inspector before eviction of a report, so I answered both. Again, it isn't clear what you mean by your question. Building Inspectors are required to submit eviction reports on the forums as it is the main part of their job, but no there isn't a policy/law (to my knowledge) directly implying a Building Inspector is always required to fill a report on the forums (sending mail being part of that) before a plot is evicted.
Click to expand...
Objection - Ambiguous/Nothing Pending (Answer to question 2)

Your Honor,

The witness's response to a simple question could have been written better. We asked if there is or is not a policy within our question. Can the court please compel the witness to answer the question? They are an Inspection Manager and assist in the drafting of department policy.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Ambiguous/Nothing Pending (Answer to question 2)

Your Honor,

The witness's response to a simple question could have been written better. We asked if there is or is not a policy within our question. Can the court please compel the witness to answer the question? They are an Inspection Manager and assist in the drafting of department policy.
Click to expand...


Your Honor,

I wish to note that this image failed to upload previously to the forums, but it appears to be not working. We want to enter this image pulled directly from the 'Building Inspector Guide,' a document published on the DCT information and policy page. A document outlining the process for Building Inspectors to follow. Please note it is represented as P-006

p-006.PNG
 
The_Superior10 said:
1. The DCT has to always validate reports before evicting.
2. I was not sure what you meant by the question, if BIs are required to fill reports as part of their job or if a report is always required to be filled by a building inspector before eviction of a report, so I answered both. Again, it isn't clear what you mean by your question. Building Inspectors are required to submit eviction reports on the forums as it is the main part of their job, but no there isn't a policy/law (to my knowledge) directly implying a Building Inspector is always required to fill a report on the forums (sending mail being part of that) before a plot is evicted.
Click to expand...
Follow Up Questions

  1. Did you or another member of the DCT validate the eviction report filed by the Town of Oakridge before actioning the eviction?
  2. Did the specific report being disputed get reported on the forums before the plot was evicted?
  3. Did the town of Oakridge report the plot in a DCT ticket?
 
Nacho said:
Follow Up Questions

  1. Did you or another member of the DCT validate the eviction report filed by the Town of Oakridge before actioning the eviction?
  2. Did the specific report being disputed get reported on the forums before the plot was evicted?
  3. Did the town of Oakridge report the plot in a DCT ticket?
Click to expand...
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Ambiguous/Nothing Pending (Answer to question 2)

Your Honor,

The witness's response to a simple question could have been written better. We asked if there is or is not a policy within our question. Can the court please compel the witness to answer the question? They are an Inspection Manager and assist in the drafting of department policy.
Click to expand...
Sustained. Mr. Nacho, please rewrite the question for clarity, then the witness can answer it.
 
Mr. Nacho, since you haven't responded or asked more questions within the last 24 hours, we will move on.

The defense now has 24 hours to ask any questions to the witnesses. Witnesses will then have 24 hours to answer, and the defense can follow up with additional questions within 24 hours after that.
 
Your honor, may I request an extension to find a lawyer who can question the witnesses, since I am on the witness list?
 
Granted. An additional 24 hours is provided to ask your first set of questions. Mr. Yeet, please note that the DOJ can help if necessary.
 
This is AlexanderLove from the Department of Justice, I will be assuming co-counsel for the duration of witness testimony. First, I have a few objections to make regarding the direct examinations before we go into cross examinations fully:

Nacho said:
Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Incompetent. The_Superior10 does not work for the Town of Oakridge and wouldn't be an expert about the inner workings of the town. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Nacho said:
Does the DCT validate the reports before evicting them, or does it merely take the mayor's word and take action against them?
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Compound question. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Nacho said:
Your response to question 3 states, "The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums." However, in your second part, you state just the opposite. Can you please clarify if there is or if there is not a policy outlining that Building Inspectors are required to submit the reports to the forums.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Relevance. The role of building inspectors is trivial in this case as this is about the authority of Town Mayors. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Nacho said:
Do you message every individual being evicted that their plot will be evicted and not mention that you are not a part of the DCT?
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Leading and argumentative, particularly the last part. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Nacho said:
wish to note that this image failed to upload previously to the forums, but it appears to be not working. We want to enter this image pulled directly from the 'Building Inspector Guide,' a document published on the DCT information and policy page. A document outlining the process for Building Inspectors to follow. Please note it is represented as P-006
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. This should have been submitted in discovery. It is far too late to enter new evidence into the record especially as openings have already been delivered. I motion to strike P-006.
 
Your Honor,

I would like to file a response to these objections tonight once I am home from work.
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
Objection, your honor. Incompetent. The_Superior10 does not work for the Town of Oakridge and wouldn't be an expert about the inner workings of the town. I motion to strike the question and answer.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, it is beyond doubt that The_Superiror10, as the Inspection Manager, is a legitimate and expert witness on the subject matter they are being questioned on. The question was straightforward and direct: "Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?" We are asking the inspection manager within the federal entity charged with the responsibility of overseeing evictions if a mayor has the authority to evict plots or not. This is not incompetence, the only incompetence here is the individual the defendant has throwing out this objection and wasting our time.

Objection, your honor. Compound question. I motion to strike the question and answer.
Click to expand...
It's not a compound question. Your Honor, we are again asking the Inspection Manager how the DCT handles its relationship with and processing of local eviction reports.

Objection, your honor. Relevance. The role of building inspectors is trivial in this case as this is about the authority of Town Mayors. I motion to strike the question and answer.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, this case is larger than merely the mayor's authority. It focuses on the rights of the individuals who fall victim to these bogus reports. While it's entertaining that the defendant's so-called council is attempting to frame this case as focusing solely on the town of Oakridge, we still have the opportunity to fully explain our argument before this court. This question focuses on the point that the Town does not have the authority, per the constitution, to evict plots. The question asks the Inspection Manager about the process defined by the federal institution charged by the constitution to maintain building standards, the process in which building reports are filed and carried out. So to keep it brief it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case.

Objection, your honor. Leading and argumentative, particularly the last part. I motion to strike the question and answer.
Click to expand...
The witnesses appeared to be acting in the capacity of a Building Inspector, messaged my client, and interjected themselves into the eviction process that was being carried out by the Department of Construction and Transportation. It is not argumentative, we are asking the witness to confirm or deny the facts of evidence we presented to the court.

Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. This should have been submitted in discovery. It is far too late to enter new evidence into the record especially as openings have already been delivered. I motion to strike P-006.
Click to expand...
We argue that rule 4.2 does not apply to this piece of evidence, as the witnesses have technically perjured themselves. Based on their responses, we directly asked them and brought forward the policy they were contradicting. We didn't feel the need to make the inspection Manager catch a perjury charge.

In Summary...
Your Honor,

The defense raises points of rules and these objections before the court. However, the court has already progressed to cross-examination. The court historically has never permitted objections to be filed on past arguments, even when the council has changed. The State could have stepped in from the beginning. The Mayor was representing themselves during the time of witness testimony. They had the opportunity to object as well as counter to the questions we asked. Our questions were not hostile or argumentative and did not lead in any capacity. The defense attorney is simply trying to suppress my client's voice in this matter and make a mockery of this court as they historically have done in any case.

We request that the court reject the notion that the Commonwealth can represent the Town of Oakridge in this matter. While the towns are an extension of the Executive branch, they are not direct members of the cabinet and do not obtain the legal protections afforded to executive departments outlined within the constitution. The town historically has represented themselves

Furthermore, we wish to file the following objection.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The defense missed their deadline of 24 hours. While they did file an objection, it does not automatically provide them an extension as it does not prevent them from asking redirecting questions on the other various questions we asked the witnesses. Your Honor, we request the court to charge the plaintiff and their council with contempt and, furthermore, progress this case to continue past their ability to cross-examine the witnesses as they have again missed their deadline.
YeetBoy1872325 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure.

Opposing counsel has missed their 24 hour deadline to post questions, and no extension requests were made. The defense asks that you charge opposing counsel with Contempt of Court, instruct the witnesses to disregard the questions asked by the opposition, and move witness testimonies into cross examination
Click to expand...


We appreciate your taking the time to read all of that.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
This is AlexanderLove from the Department of Justice, I will be assuming co-counsel for the duration of witness testimony. First, I have a few objections to make regarding the direct examinations before we go into cross examinations fully:


Objection, your honor. Incompetent. The_Superior10 does not work for the Town of Oakridge and wouldn't be an expert about the inner workings of the town. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Compound question. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Relevance. The role of building inspectors is trivial in this case as this is about the authority of Town Mayors. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Leading and argumentative, particularly the last part. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. This should have been submitted in discovery. It is far too late to enter new evidence into the record especially as openings have already been delivered. I motion to strike P-006.
Click to expand...
Overruled. The_Superior10 is clearly an expert witness, and their testimony is relevant to the case.

Overruled. The witness answered the question clearly and was not confused by it.

Overruled. I believe the role of the BI is pertinent to this case.

Sustained. The question and answer are struck, not for being argumentative but for being leading.

Sustained. The evidence is struck. It was not entered into discovery, and the DCT policy is already part of the case evidence.
 
Nacho said:
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

Your Honor, it is beyond doubt that The_Superiror10, as the Inspection Manager, is a legitimate and expert witness on the subject matter they are being questioned on. The question was straightforward and direct: "Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?" We are asking the inspection manager within the federal entity charged with the responsibility of overseeing evictions if a mayor has the authority to evict plots or not. This is not incompetence, the only incompetence here is the individual the defendant has throwing out this objection and wasting our time.


It's not a compound question. Your Honor, we are again asking the Inspection Manager how the DCT handles its relationship with and processing of local eviction reports.


Your Honor, this case is larger than merely the mayor's authority. It focuses on the rights of the individuals who fall victim to these bogus reports. While it's entertaining that the defendant's so-called council is attempting to frame this case as focusing solely on the town of Oakridge, we still have the opportunity to fully explain our argument before this court. This question focuses on the point that the Town does not have the authority, per the constitution, to evict plots. The question asks the Inspection Manager about the process defined by the federal institution charged by the constitution to maintain building standards, the process in which building reports are filed and carried out. So to keep it brief it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case.


The witnesses appeared to be acting in the capacity of a Building Inspector, messaged my client, and interjected themselves into the eviction process that was being carried out by the Department of Construction and Transportation. It is not argumentative, we are asking the witness to confirm or deny the facts of evidence we presented to the court.


We argue that rule 4.2 does not apply to this piece of evidence, as the witnesses have technically perjured themselves. Based on their responses, we directly asked them and brought forward the policy they were contradicting. We didn't feel the need to make the inspection Manager catch a perjury charge.

In Summary...
Your Honor,

The defense raises points of rules and these objections before the court. However, the court has already progressed to cross-examination. The court historically has never permitted objections to be filed on past arguments, even when the council has changed. The State could have stepped in from the beginning. The Mayor was representing themselves during the time of witness testimony. They had the opportunity to object as well as counter to the questions we asked. Our questions were not hostile or argumentative and did not lead in any capacity. The defense attorney is simply trying to suppress my client's voice in this matter and make a mockery of this court as they historically have done in any case.

We request that the court reject the notion that the Commonwealth can represent the Town of Oakridge in this matter. While the towns are an extension of the Executive branch, they are not direct members of the cabinet and do not obtain the legal protections afforded to executive departments outlined within the constitution. The town historically has represented themselves

Furthermore, we wish to file the following objection.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The defense missed their deadline of 24 hours. While they did file an objection, it does not automatically provide them an extension as it does not prevent them from asking redirecting questions on the other various questions we asked the witnesses. Your Honor, we request the court to charge the plaintiff and their council with contempt and, furthermore, progress this case to continue past their ability to cross-examine the witnesses as they have again missed their deadline.



We appreciate your taking the time to read all of that.
Click to expand...

I will be allowing the Commonwealth to assist the town during witness testimonies since the town mayor is a witness.

However, I will sustain your objection, and hold @YeetBoy1872325 in contempt BUT will allow them to cross-examine.
 
@Alexander P. Love You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to either both witnesses or one at a time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.
 
I'm sorry, let me correct myself. You have the original deadline until 7/10/2024 at 3:16 PM EST to ask questions. @Alexander P. Love
 
Yeet_Boy:
1. How do towns have the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction?
2. How does oakridge have the jurisdiction to evict Oakridge plots in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
3. Was BoopingBerry in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
 
The_Superior10:
1. Are you aware of the executive order that gives towns the ability to oversee their own building regulations?
2. Isn’t it true that Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for violations of its building code?
3. Does Oakridge law require notice to be sent to the person being evicted?
4. Isn’t it true that the DCT helped action the eviction in question in adherence with Oakridge law and the town executive order?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
The_Superior10:
1. Are you aware of the executive order that gives towns the ability to oversee their own building regulations?
2. Isn’t it true that Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for violations of its building code?
3. Does Oakridge law require notice to be sent to the person being evicted?
4. Isn’t it true that the DCT helped action the eviction in question in adherence with Oakridge law and the town executive order?
Click to expand...
1. I am aware of the executive order allows the town government to facilitate setting the town building regulations and facilitate the eviction process, not sure if this is what you mean.
2. Yes, the Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for certain violations.
3. No
4. The DCT actioned the eviction in adherence with Oakridge law and town executive order.
 
The_Superior10 said:
1. I am aware of the executive order allows the town government to facilitate setting the town building regulations and facilitate the eviction process, not sure if this is what you mean.
2. Yes, the Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for certain violations.
3. No
4. The DCT actioned the eviction in adherence with Oakridge law and town executive order.
Click to expand...
Excellent, no further questions for this witnesses.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Yeet_Boy:
1. How do towns have the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction?
2. How does oakridge have the jurisdiction to evict Oakridge plots in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
3. Was BoopingBerry in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
Click to expand...
1. They are given the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction, which in practice is the ability to set local plot regulations and request that the DCT action evictions for plots violating local regulations.
2. The Oakridge Property Standards Act is the law of the land in Oakridge, so it must be followed according to what it says. This means that if a violation requires immediate eviction, we request that the DCT evict it immediately, and if it says that a violation requires notice before eviction, then we request that the DCT does so. Oakridge has the legal jurisdiction to enforce punishments for violations, but the DCT is needed due to them having permissions to action evictions.
3. Yes
 
Excellent, no further questions for either witness, your honor. The Mayor of Oakridge will return as counsel for the rest of this case.
 
thank you.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit a closing statement.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Yeet_Boy:
1. How do towns have the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction?
2. How does oakridge have the jurisdiction to evict Oakridge plots in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
3. Was BoopingBerry in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
Click to expand...
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.


Alexander P. Love said:
The_Superior10:
1. Are you aware of the executive order that gives towns the ability to oversee their own building regulations?
2. Isn’t it true that Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for violations of its building code?
3. Does Oakridge law require notice to be sent to the person being evicted?
4. Isn’t it true that the DCT helped action the eviction in question in adherence with Oakridge law and the town executive order?
Click to expand...
Objection - Leading Questions

Your Honor,

We'd like to object to questions 2 and 4 to the witness on the following grounds.

The question is legit blatantly leading the witness to provide a specific answer.

We would like the question to be struck, including the response.
 
Your Honor,

We request to hold off on posting a closing response until a ruling is made on the objections filled. The wording of the closing response will depend on whether the responses remain or not.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.



Objection - Leading Questions

Your Honor,

We'd like to object to questions 2 and 4 to the witness on the following grounds.

The question is legit blatantly leading the witness to provide a specific answer.

We would like the question to be struck, including the response.
Click to expand...
Your honor, leading is allowed on cross. This is a common Court principle.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the witness is an expert in Oakridge law and politics as its Mayor and can answer about Oakridge building code specifically.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, leading is allowed on cross. This is a common Court principle.
Click to expand...
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, the witness is an expert in Oakridge law and politics as its Mayor and can answer about Oakridge building code specifically.
Click to expand...
Objection - Breach of Procedures (x2)

Your Honor,

The individual clearly indicated when they originally posted within the thread they were here to provide assistance for witness testimony:
I will be assuming co-counsel for the duration of witness testimony.
Click to expand...

The court has indicated that we are no longer in witness testimony and are in closing remarks.

The individual has further indicated previously that the Mayor will be resuming as counsel for the remainder of the case. Thus they are no longer a party in this case and should not be permitted to speak further.

We request that the comments be struck and the individual held in contempt for speaking when the court has not permitted it.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Breach of Procedures (x2)

Your Honor,

The individual clearly indicated when they originally posted within the thread they were here to provide assistance for witness testimony:


The court has indicated that we are no longer in witness testimony and are in closing remarks.

The individual has further indicated previously that the Mayor will be resuming as counsel for the remainder of the case. Thus they are no longer a party in this case and should not be permitted to speak further.

We request that the comments be struck and the individual held in contempt for speaking when the court has not permitted it.
Click to expand...
These objections are related to witness testimony.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.



Objection - Leading Questions

Your Honor,

We'd like to object to questions 2 and 4 to the witness on the following grounds.

The question is legit blatantly leading the witness to provide a specific answer.

We would like the question to be struck, including the response.
Click to expand...
Overruled. The witness is the mayor, so I would like to hear their testimony.

Overruled. I will allow the leading question since it's cross-examination.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Breach of Procedures (x2)

Your Honor,

The individual clearly indicated when they originally posted within the thread they were here to provide assistance for witness testimony:


The court has indicated that we are no longer in witness testimony and are in closing remarks.

The individual has further indicated previously that the Mayor will be resuming as counsel for the remainder of the case. Thus they are no longer a party in this case and should not be permitted to speak further.

We request that the comments be struck and the individual held in contempt for speaking when the court has not permitted it.
Click to expand...
Sustained, but I will not be holding them in contempt nor striking the statements. Mr. Love, please refrain from speaking again unless requested.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout this trial, we have been presented with two contrasting narratives. On the one hand, we have demonstrated that the town of Oakridge, led by Mayor Yeet_Boy, unjustly evicted BoopingBerry from her plot, OR-VALLEY-15, without adhering to the proper eviction processes outlined by the Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT). This eviction was conducted in violation of the DCT policies for eviction, as there was no substantiated evidence of any building regulation violations on BoopingBerry’s part published in a formal report on the forums. On the other hand, the defense has failed to present a cohesive argument or provide any substantial evidence to justify the eviction being processed in accordance with the Federal guidelines of how eviction reports are filed and actioned. While the town can make arguments about such reports, they cannot claim that the report was executed properly by the town in adherence to DCT policy as demonstrated by the Inspection Manager within the DCT.

In our opening statement, I committed to showing that BoopingBerry’s eviction was unjustified and an overreach of authority by the town's officials. Through witness testimony, we presented that the Town of Oakridge failed to follow the federally defined process through department policy, which stated that a justified eviction was action with the lack of a report being filed.

It is also important to note that the defense did not take this case seriously. They failed to meet critical deadlines and did not present an opening statement, indicating a lack of respect for this court and the judicial process. This negligence further underscores the lack of merit in their case and their inability to justify the wrongful eviction of BoopingBerry.

BoopingBerry has suffered significant financial harm due to the unjust eviction from her plot. The Town of Oakridge acted in bad faith and outside their jurisdiction, causing undue stress and financial strain on a dedicated and peace-loving resident. We'd like to ask you to recognize the injustice that has been done and to rectify it by ruling in favor of BoopingBerry. This is not just about one individual but about upholding our community's principles of fairness and justice.

Thank you, Your Honor, for your time, attention, and understanding throughout this trial. We appreciate your careful consideration of this case and trust that you will deliver a verdict that upholds justice and protects the rights of innocent residents like BoopingBerry.
 
The Defense has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

In their attempt to unjustly besmirch the Town of Oakridge and its Mayor, the Prosecution has made several critical errors in their arguments. While the Defense may have missed the opportunity to file an Opening Statement, this does not take away from their right to a fair trial. The Defendant was held in contempt, and that is sufficient.

Throughout the duration of this trial, witnesses have provided critical information establishing the following:

- Towns have the ability and authority to override Department Policies [Executive Order 15/24, Testimonies of Yeet_Boy & TheSuperior10]
- Therefore, the Oakridge Property Standards Act dictates local policies relating to Property.
- The plot limit for or-valley properties, or 'residential' properties [See: Oakridge Building Regulations] is 1
- The Plaintiff owned 2 or-valley properties, or-valley 01 & or-valley 15, thus was subsequently in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act. [See: Oakridge Property Standards Act]
- The Plaintiff's property was thus seized lawfully in compliance with the Oakridge Property Standards Act [See: OPSA, Testimonies of Yeet_Boy & TheSuperior10]

Keeping in mind these critical facts, the Plaintiff's claims for relief can be dismissed in quick succession:

- The claim for Punitive Damages is invalid as the witness testimonies have established that the eviction process was done in compliance with the Oakridge Property Standards Act.
- The claim for Jurisdictional Power Violation is invalid as the Town sought aid of the DCT to conduct the eviction, as established in witness testimonies.

As such, taking into consideration that the charges levied against the Defendant, the court can easily identify that the Town acted within the powers granted to them by EO 15/24, acted in line with the regulations established in the Oakridge Property Standards Act, which therefore can allow the court to come to the simple conclusion that the Plaintiff has no standing in this case.

In conclusion, the Defense urges the court to reject all prayers for relief and rule in favor of the Defense, in order to preserve the rights of the town and to prevent an illegal precedent from being established.

Thank you for your time.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge [FCR] 88

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. BoopingBerry, represented by Nacholebraa, argues that the eviction of plot OR-VALLEY-15 by the Town of Oakridge, specifically by Mayor Yeet_Boy, was carried out without proper authority and in violation of the Property Standards Act and Oakridge Building Regulations. The plaintiff asserts there was no valid basis for the eviction and that the action was a targeted attempt to inflict financial damage and harm the plaintiff's legitimacy.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Town of Oakridge, affirming the facts presented, contends that the eviction was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 5/24 - Local Governance, which grants towns the authority over plot evictions within their jurisdiction. The defense argues that the Oakridge Property Standards Act mandates immediate eviction and a fine for exceeding plot limitations. Despite not being required to, Oakridge notified BoopingBerry in advance, providing an opportunity to request an exemption, which the plaintiff did not utilize. The eviction was executed by the DCT in compliance with the established regulations and executive order.

III. THE COURT OPINION

  1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
  2. During the time of this situation, the power granted to towns was outlined in Executive Order 5/24. In this order, the President stated: “- Town building regulations (facilitated by town government)” and “- In the event that any Town legislation contradicts any Federal legislation, the Federal legislation shall apply within the jurisdiction of the Town, unless such legislation expressly [mentions] the jurisdiction. Any Federal code which is not an Act of Congress, an Executive Order, or within the Constitution, such as department policy, does not take precedence over Town legislation.” This order grants towns the ability to create building regulations and clarifies that department policy does not take precedence over town legislation.
  3. The Property Standards Act only sets standards for R Plots, C Plots, I Plots, S Plots, BM Plots, and F plots. Therefore, this act doesn’t set standards for the plots in Oakridge referred to as OR-Valley Plots, OR-C Plots, OR-SP Plots, OR-Orchard, and Themed Plots. The standard for Oakridge plots comes from the Oakridge Property Standards Act passed by the town government.
  4. The court has established that at the time of the situation, Executive Order 5/24 gave towns rights over town building regulations and that department policy doesn’t take precedence over town legislation (i.e., Oakridge Property Standards Act). Therefore, the applicable law is the Oakridge Property Standards Act, which states, “Plots beginning with 'OR-Valley' are Residential plots,” indicating that the two plots owned by the plaintiff were Residential plots. The OPSA also states, “(1) Residential plots. No player shall own more than 1 Residential plot,” and “Going over the plot limitations will result in an immediate eviction from plots until the limit is reached. Each eviction will also come with a $500 fine.”
  5. So, property standards were set, and the DCT, acting within its constitutional authority, evicted the plot as requested by the town. While the Oakridge Property Standards Act was followed correctly in this process, it raises questions of constitutional violation—not regarding the town's right to create such acts, but whether they infringed upon citizens' rights.
  6. Rights & Freedoms number fifteen states, “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” This brings us to the reasonable person test: Would a reasonable person believe an immediate eviction and fine for breaking property law to be reasonable? This court does not believe so. Not only does immediately evicting someone without prior notice or warning constitute unreasonable seizure, but the town also does not have a report system in place to notify a citizen of the issue, nor do they allow the citizen to choose which plot to give up. The town evicted the plaintiff’s plot without warning and did not let the plaintiff choose the plot to relinquish, instead taking the "better" plot.
  7. Immediate eviction of a property without reasonable prior notice is a violation of Rights & Freedoms number fifteen. When awarding damages for this case, there are two aspects to note: the rights of a citizen were violated, but the town was just following the law that had been written. Both aspects will influence the damages awarded.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 88, I rule in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer for relief.
  1. The Oakridge Property Standards Act is hereby struck from law.
  2. The plaintiff is awarded $60,000 in punitive damages as compensation for the violation of their rights.
  3. The plot OR-VALLEY-15 is to be returned to the plaintiff immediately.
  4. The plaintiff's lawyer shall receive $18,000 (30%) of the monetary award in legal fees.


The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top