Lawsuit: Adjourned smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103

[Jakovus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

smokeyybunnyyy (represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Complaint
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff was damaged by the Commonwealth when the latter was executing an auction for an evicted plot, specifically plot C514. Through the bidding process, to ensure its validity, all parties and potential bidders must be informed equally and expeditiously of developments so that their judgement and allocation of funds remain clear and unobscured, and so they could reasonably be able to themselves judge the risks of an auction.

If the bidding process is invaded by a fraudulent factor, which artificially raises bids in an unmerited manner, meaning they do not have the financial means to support the given bid, then in no reasonable way can other bidders be expected to have been able to clearly judge the risks and merits of an auction. An auction filled with fraudulent bids does not showcase real value, and it pushes legitimate bidders to inadvertently allocate a greater, otherwise unrealistic sum for a property. According to the guidelines of the Department of Construction and Transport (hereinafter DCT), “Users may only bid what is currently in their personal [...] balance. Should an individual wish to bid via an alternate account, the player must state the source of the funds in the bid.” It is, thus, DCT’s responsibility to annul the bidding of fraudulent origin, and return the auction to the last point where bids were legitimate, as that would make bidders reasonably informed, as the realistic bids would determine a fair, non fraudulent price .

The Plaintiff was bidding on the C514 plot at an auction, when a fraudulent individual, EddieGonza420, began placing fraudulent bids, contrary to the aforementioned DCT guideline. The DCT annulled the fraudulent bids, but refused to return the bids of the Plaintiff to the last point all of them were legitimate, even though the only bidders at that point were the Plaintiff and the aforementioned individual. That way, the Plaintiff was fraudulently led to bid more, and could not have reasonably been expected to make an informed decision on her bids, making them invalid. The Commonwealth refused to alleviate the Plaintiff, rather stating that “you [the Plaintiff] technically outbid yourself with another valid bid, making it the highest valid bid.” In the Plaintiff’s opinion, there is no way the subsequent bids by the Plaintiff can be considered valid, as they were the result of a fraudulent bidding by a third party, which falsely led the Plaintiff to believe the bid had to be raised. Were that not the case, it is reasonable to assume the Plaintiff would not baselessly raise their own, unopposed bid.

In a separate auction the Plaintiff participated in (R050), when a similar situation occurred, the DCT agreed to forgo the invalid bids and let the property go for the highest bid made on the basis of legitimate prior bids. The DCT failed to follow its own precedent, and failed to treat the Plaintiff equally as it did before without any warrant to do so, thus contrasting the Plaintiff’s inalienable rights, defined in Part IV, §33, Point XIII of the Constitution.

I. PARTIES

1. smokeyybunnyyy
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS

1. On 2nd July, 2024, the auction for plot R050 was concluded, in which the DCT officer struck down an invalid bid made by Mr President Beezergeezer, and acknowledged that a new bid of $11,500 made by the Plaintiff is unnecessary, as she won on the basis of a previous $10,500 bid,
2. On 2nd July, 2024, the Plaintiff won the auction for plot C514 on the basis of her $18,000 dollar bid,
3. On 2nd July, 2024, the Plaintiff inquired in the auction channel whether the $18,000 bid stands, because the last bid made by EddieGonza420 of $16,000 was invalid, as it was discover that they only have $14,500 in their balance,
4. Subsequent to Point 3, the DCT officer claimed “the $18k bid is valid”,
5. On 8th July, 2024, the Plaintiff opened a ticket by the DCT to challenge the $18,000 bid’s validity,
6. Subsequent to Point 5, the DCT officer in the ticket exclaimed how the Plaintiff “technically outbid [them]selves with another valid bid, making it the highest valid bid.”, and agreed how “the case with beezer is not really different [to the case in question]”.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Since the knowingly fraudulent bids posted by EddieGonza420 obscured the Plaintiff’s clarity of judgement, it forced an otherwise unreasonable raise in the Plaintiff’s bidding, and even after the DCT acknowledged and annulled them, it failed to recognise that the lower, already posted bid by the Plaintiff was the only legitimate one, and the subsequent $18,000 one invalid because it was based on fraudulent bids from a third party, out of reasonable fear that the property will not be acquired by the Plaintiff,
2. The DCT disregarded its own precedent without any warrant to do so in a similar situation regarding the auction of plot R050, thus failing to treat the Plaintiff equally by the law, breaching Part IV, §33, Point XIII of the Constitution.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. The difference between the higher and lower bid shall be refunded to the Plaintiff, amounting to $3,000,
2. Punitive damages for blatant disregard of previous practice by the DTC, compounded by failing to treat the Plaintiff equally, totalling $10,000,
3. Emotional damages for being disregarded and ignored by DCT, especially because of change of treatment in two examples provided, amounting to $5,000,
4. Legal fees, which account for 20% of the case’s monetary relief, totalling $3,600.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Exhibit A: The Plaintiff opened a ticket by the DCT

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Exhibit B: Conversation with DCT #1

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Exhibit C: Conversation with DCT #2

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Exhibit D: Conversation with DCT #3

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Exhibit E: Conversation with DCT #4

Spoiler: Exhibit F

Spoiler: Exhibit G

Spoiler: Exhibit H

Spoiler: Exhibit I

Spoiler: Exhibit J

Exhibit J: Proof of sale of plot C514 for $18,000

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 9th day of July, 2024.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@Dr_Eksplosive (AG) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures , including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I am representing the Commonwealth as an associate prosecutor from the Department of Justice.

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

smokeyybunnyyy
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. I move to dismiss this case under rule 5.5, lack of claim as the plaintiff has failed to cite any actual claim under the law, only resorting to reasoning that falls outside the scope of the law. Citing the Constitution is invalid as the DCT is not bound by their own precedent, and policy is not the same as law. Equality under the law is mandated, but equality under any other factor is not mandated.
2. I move to dismiss this case for a lack of standing, as the plaintiff entered a valid bid, which is a legally binding agreement to purchase the property in exchange for the consideration offered by the plaintiff. While a previous bid was invalid, the plaintiff failed to investigate this herself before bidding, so there is contributory negligence. The plaintiff therefore has no claim of injury done to her, as any injury done was to herself out of negligence.

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 12th day of July 2024.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honour,
may the Plaintiff provide an answer to the Motion to Dismiss?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

You may in the next 48 hours

 

[Jakovus]

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

Your honour,

in compelling the Court not to dismiss this lawsuit, the Plaintiff will answer the Defendant’s concerns:

I. To support the Plaintiff’s claim, and show that there is a Claim for which my client is entitled to compensation, I call upon precedent established in the verdict of Bombaz2005 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 78, where the presiding officer established that an auction is a proposal for contract formation, and that every offer constitutes a new contract proposal. If a contract is made on a fraudulent basis, and its consideration drawn from fraudulent bids, then in no way can it be considered a fair and legally binding contract. This is pretty rudimentary contract law. Specifically, §8, Point 1, Clause a) of Contracts Act, establishing Misrepresentation, was breached, because a false statement (the fraudulent bid) by EddieGonza420 forced my client to enter propose a new bid (i.e. new contract proposal) with a greater consideration than necessary. The Commonwealth acknowledged, but failed to remedy this, instead executing the invalid contract, even after it was established that prior bids were invalid. Regarding DCT, it is a carrier of public authority and a wing of the Executive branch of the Government of Redmont. Its responsibility is to execute laws, and respect the Constitution in doing so, and a Government agency cannot choose which individuals it treats this way, and which the other. That is called discrimination, and prohibited by the given Part IV, §33, Point XIII of the Constitution.

II. The entire purpose of this case is to show that the bids in question are not valid, and the Defendant cannot simply claim that they are valid and thus this case is unmerited. This is to be determined in this Court. Furthermore, it is not, nor ever has been, the responsibility of bidders to prove authenticity of other bidders’ bids, and the Defendant claiming otherwise is an enigma for me. DCT is the authority entrusted with executing orderly auctions, and thus its responsibility to make sure auctions remain representative and fair, which is why DCT was the one negligent, not the Plaintiff.

DATED: This 13th day of July, 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Denied. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has failed to cite any actual claim under the law, asserting that the cited Constitution and policy violations do not constitute a legal basis for the claim. The Plaintiff has referenced precedent established in the verdict of Bombaz2005 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 78, which treats an auction as a proposal for contract formation. The Plaintiff has alleged that fraudulent bids forced her to enter a contract with greater consideration than necessary, which could constitute a valid claim. This claim warrants further examination and cannot be dismissed at this stage.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will now move into a 3 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.

 

[Jakovus]

WITNESS LIST:
The Plaintiff wishes to call smokeyybunnyyy and The_Superior10 to the stand.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, Superior is hostile to the plaintiff. I propose to move the witness under the defense witness list instead.

 

[Jakovus]

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

The Plaintiff is not hostile to the aforementioned witness, nor is it supported by evidence. Superior only acted as the representative of the Government; the Plaintiff is not hostile to the Witness, and the communication between the Plaintiff and Superior was of civil and bona fide character. The Defendant's request is not grounded in fact, but pure assumptions.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

The Plaintiff is not hostile to the aforementioned witness, nor is it supported by evidence. Superior only acted as the representative of the Government; the Plaintiff is not hostile to the Witness, and the communication between the Plaintiff and Superior was of civil and bona fide character. The Defendant's request is not grounded in fact, but pure assumptions.

Your honor, this objection is used to strike witness testimony, not motions.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your honor, Superior is hostile to the plaintiff. I propose to move the witness under the defense witness list instead.

Denied.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

The Plaintiff is not hostile to the aforementioned witness, nor is it supported by evidence. Superior only acted as the representative of the Government; the Plaintiff is not hostile to the Witness, and the communication between the Plaintiff and Superior was of civil and bona fide character. The Defendant's request is not grounded in fact, but pure assumptions.

Overruled.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

We will now move into a 3 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, the defense never submitted a response to complaint. I suggest that we be granted 48 hours to file one.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The court is taking the motion to dismiss as the answer; however, if you wish, you may post an answer before discovery is over. Discovery will continue.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defense would like to submit Exhibit A / D-01 into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit A

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The court is taking the motion to dismiss as the answer; however, if you wish, you may post an answer before discovery is over. Discovery will continue.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of Procedure

A motion to dismiss is a motion, not a response to complaint. While it is a unique motion, it does not serve the same fundamental purpose as a response to complaint does. Court procedure mandates a response to complaint whether or not a motion to dismiss is filed.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defense would like to submit Exhibit A / D-01 into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit A

View attachment 45701

Interrogatory
1. Isn't it true that the fair offer initially presented in this screenshot was denied by the plaintiff?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of Procedure

A motion to dismiss is a motion, not a response to complaint. While it is a unique motion, it does not serve the same fundamental purpose as a response to complaint does. Court procedure mandates a response to complaint whether or not a motion to dismiss is filed.

Sustained. Please submit your answer before the conclusion of discovery. I will make sure to take note of this for the future.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Sustained. Please submit your answer before the conclusion of discovery. I will make sure to take note of this for the future.

Your honor, I request a 24 hour extension. I don't have time in the next seven hours to write out a response to complaint due to work in a few minutes.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Granted. I will extend discovery as well.

 

[Jakovus]

The defense would like to submit Exhibit A / D-01 into evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit A

View attachment 45701

OBJECTION
Relevance

Your honour,
this evidence is in regard to the Defendant trying to bargain out of Court for the Plaintiff to drop legal charges. After a short discussion, the Plaintiff denied this attempt. I do not see how this evidence has anything to do with my client's bids, or the fault of the Commonwealth to properly render the bids. It cannot be used against the Plaintiff, this evidence supports nothing and certainly cannot prove whether Plaintiff was damaged. Interrogatory as well, as it is subsequential to the Evidence.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love 24 hours to respond.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION
Relevance

Your honour,
this evidence is in regard to the Defendant trying to bargain out of Court for the Plaintiff to drop legal charges. After a short discussion, the Plaintiff denied this attempt. I do not see how this evidence has anything to do with my client's bids, or the fault of the Commonwealth to properly render the bids. It cannot be used against the Plaintiff, this evidence supports nothing and certainly cannot prove whether Plaintiff was damaged. Interrogatory as well, as it is subsequential to the Evidence.

It goes to show the plaintiff's lack of effort to mitigate damages and resolve the situation in a fair manner, which is important when determining remedies should the plaintiff win.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Relevance

Your honour,
this evidence is in regard to the Defendant trying to bargain out of Court for the Plaintiff to drop legal charges. After a short discussion, the Plaintiff denied this attempt. I do not see how this evidence has anything to do with my client's bids, or the fault of the Commonwealth to properly render the bids. It cannot be used against the Plaintiff, this evidence supports nothing and certainly cannot prove whether Plaintiff was damaged. Interrogatory as well, as it is subsequential to the Evidence.

Overruled

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

smokeyybunnyyy
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense does not dispute that "On 2nd July, 2024, the auction for plot R050 was concluded, in which the DCT officer struck down an invalid bid made by Mr President Beezergeezer, and acknowledged that a new bid of $11,500 made by the Plaintiff is unnecessary, as she won on the basis of a previous $10,500 bid."
2. The defense affirms that "On 2nd July, 2024, the Plaintiff won the auction for plot C514 on the basis of her $18,000 dollar bid."
3. The defense affirms that "On 2nd July, 2024, the Plaintiff inquired in the auction channel whether the $18,000 bid stands, because the last bid made by EddieGonza420 of $16,000 was invalid, as it was discover[ed] that they only have $14,500 in their balance."
4. The defense affirms that "Subsequent to Point 3, the DCT officer claimed 'the $18k bid is valid'", and reiterates that the $18,000 bid is indeed valid.
5. The defense does not dispute that On 8th July, 2024, the Plaintiff opened a ticket by the DCT to challenge the $18,000 bid’s validity.
6. The defense does not dispute that "Subsequent to Point 5, the DCT officer in the ticket exclaimed how the Plaintiff 'technically outbid [them]selves with another valid bid, making it the highest valid bid.', and agreed how 'the case with beezer is not really different [to the case in question]'".

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense asserts that all elements of a legal contract were met when the plaintiff outbid themselves. It is clear they knew to check the balance of Eddie as they did so later. Their negligence of not waiting for verification of the opponent's bid caused them to hastily and impulsively outbid themselves and offer $18,000 as consideration for c514. Smokey should have checked Eddie's balance sooner or waited a little for someone to verify the bid. DCT policy states that bids may not be retracted.
2. The DCT's decision to previously grant another auction winner a lower price is not binding to other auctions. The DCT is a Department which acts of its own accord, it is not a Court with binding precedents. If anything, the DCT should not have reduced the price for r050 as the same thing is true: that winner's bid meets the agreements of a formal contract. DCT actions are not valid under the equality clause of the Constitution as it only references laws. It would be like claiming the President has to pardon all criminals because he pardons one, or the DOJ has to drop all fraud charges if they drop one on someone else.


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 18th day of July, 2024.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

smokeyybunnyyy
Counter-Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

This case is causing unnecessary legal expenses on the taxpayer dime, and therefore this counterclaim seeks to establish a request for legal fees from the defendant.


I. PARTIES
1. smokeyybunnyyy (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. I have worked at the Department of Justice for three months, meaning my biweekly salary is $5,500 (exhibits A and B) plus $2,000 per case won.
2. These expenses are at the taxpayer's expense.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act entitles the prevailing party to legal fees, and the DOJ's fee structure is entered into evidence.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $7,500 in legal fees, as I am receiving $7,500 my next paycheck, where most of my work these next two weeks is on this case.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

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 18th day of July, 2024.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor
Improper Evidence

The evidence above is now unattainable. I request it be stricken as the contents of it cannot be verified, and that the plaintiff has until the end of discovery to recover and repost the exhibits.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honour, I apologise about the evidence; why it is no longer rendering as it should be is above me. I request an extension of additional 24 hours to the Discovery, as I will be unable to reinstate the evidence today.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honour, I apologise about the evidence; why it is no longer rendering as it should be is above me. I request an extension of additional 24 hours to the Discovery, as I will be unable to reinstate the evidence today.

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, I have further discovered the evidence is discord media links, which is against Court policy. The error is therefore entirely on the plaintiff, and I refute this request for an extension. The plaintiff counsel should take better care to submit proper evidence to the Court.

 

[Jakovus]

Overruled

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

Your honour, my client isn't on trial for rejecting the Commonwealth's offer to end the case prematurely and walk away failing to adequately recompense the Plaintiff. I call on the Defendant to show the Court the entire discussion, or call the Court to compel the Defendant to do so, in which it would be clear why the Plaintiff withdrew. Not because the Plaintiff didn't want to remedy the damage done to her in a much more expeditious and easier way, but because the Commonwealth acted rudely, inappropriately, and accused the Plaintiff of being "greedy" for suggesting that the compensation of $3.5k was insufficient. The Plaintiff would much rather solve this out-of-Court, and if the Commonwealth would present a better offer in a more amicable manner, representative of a respectable and honoured lawyer such as the Defendant's counsel, then mitigation could truly be delivered by the Plaintiff.

DATED: 19th day of July, 2024

 

[Jakovus]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, I have further discovered the evidence is discord media links, which is against Court policy. The error is therefore entirely on the plaintiff, and I refute this request for an extension. The plaintiff counsel should take better care to submit proper evidence to the Court.

Your honour,
while it is true that Discord links were left in the Complaint, it is not fair coupling my inability to reinstate the evidence currently with a previous error. Within the timeframe I asked of you, the evidence will be reinstated and links substituted. The Defendant was already granted extensions previously.

Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

View attachment 45706
Objection, Your Honor
Improper Evidence

The evidence above is now unattainable. I request it be stricken as the contents of it cannot be verified, and that the plaintiff has until the end of discovery to recover and repost the exhibits.

Sustained. The plaintiff has 24 hours to re-submit the evidence.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, I have further discovered the evidence is discord media links, which is against Court policy. The error is therefore entirely on the plaintiff, and I refute this request for an extension. The plaintiff counsel should take better care to submit proper evidence to the Court.

Sustained. Again, 24 hours to re-submit the evidence in the correct form.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

Your honour, my client isn't on trial for rejecting the Commonwealth's offer to end the case prematurely and walk away failing to adequately recompense the Plaintiff. I call on the Defendant to show the Court the entire discussion, or call the Court to compel the Defendant to do so, in which it would be clear why the Plaintiff withdrew. Not because the Plaintiff didn't want to remedy the damage done to her in a much more expeditious and easier way, but because the Commonwealth acted rudely, inappropriately, and accused the Plaintiff of being "greedy" for suggesting that the compensation of $3.5k was insufficient. The Plaintiff would much rather solve this out-of-Court, and if the Commonwealth would present a better offer in a more amicable manner, representative of a respectable and honoured lawyer such as the Defendant's counsel, then mitigation could truly be delivered by the Plaintiff.

DATED: 19th day of July, 2024

Overruled. However, I do ask Mr. Love to provide the full conversation.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Overruled. However, I do ask Mr. Love to provide the full conversation.

Your honor, it was in a group chat that I no longer have access to. I DMed the plaintiff specifically, all of which is shown above. The negotiations with her lawyer were in a group DM that got disbanded after the plaintiff rejected the offer.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Sustained. Again, 24 hours to re-submit the evidence in the correct form.

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the plaintiff blatantly violated court procedure and it is the end of discovery. The plaintiff should not be rewarded with another opportunity to submit evidence which may or may not be the same evidence that was originally “submitted”.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honor, it was in a group chat that I no longer have access to. I DMed the plaintiff specifically, all of which is shown above. The negotiations with her lawyer were in a group DM that got disbanded after the plaintiff rejected the offer.

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honour,
The Defendant perjured himself by claiming this. He, on 15th July, posted the entire conversation to the #legal channel to try and make a mockery of the Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's counsel conduct in the affair. The Defendant knows very well he posted those messages, as it was only four days ago, and he tried to obstruct justice and further his case by refusing to submit this. Since he posted them, it is only reasonable to assume the Defendant still holds the screenshots (even if he didn't, he could have recovered them from Discord).

With your assent, I wish to move this to evidence:

Exhibit A1 - Part 1

Exhibit A2 - Part 2

Exhibit B1 - Proof it was in the channel.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Defendant perjured himself by claiming this. He, on 15th July, posted the entire conversation to the #legal channel to try and make a mockery of the Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's counsel conduct in the affair. The Defendant knows very well he posted those messages, as it was only four days ago, and he tried to obstruct justice and further his case by refusing to submit this. Since he posted them, it is only reasonable to assume the Defendant still holds the screenshots (even if he didn't, he could have recovered them from Discord).

To be fair I actually forgot I posted it in legal, I post a lot of stuff there. In either case, what I said wasn't untrue: the conversation was in a group chat that I no longer have access to. Thank you for recovering it, I would love for it to be moved into evidence. I wanted it in the first place.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, the plaintiff blatantly violated court procedure and it is the end of discovery. The plaintiff should not be rewarded with another opportunity to submit evidence which may or may not be the same evidence that was originally “submitted”.

Overruled. I extended the discovery period earlier today when you requested more time to answer the complaint.

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honour,
The Defendant perjured himself by claiming this. He, on 15th July, posted the entire conversation to the #legal channel to try and make a mockery of the Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's counsel conduct in the affair. The Defendant knows very well he posted those messages, as it was only four days ago, and he tried to obstruct justice and further his case by refusing to submit this. Since he posted them, it is only reasonable to assume the Defendant still holds the screenshots (even if he didn't, he could have recovered them from Discord).

Sustained. Mr. Love, I do not appreciate your attempt to withhold evidence as directed by a court order.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Overruled. I extended the discovery period earlier today when you requested more time to answer the complaint.


Sustained. Mr. Love, I do not appreciate your attempt to withhold evidence as directed by a court order.

I explained the situation earlier, did you read it? There was no “attempt to withhold evidence”

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Struck. Mr. Love, you are instructed to refrain from speaking out of line. You previously indicated that you did not possess the chats I requested. Regardless of how you phrased your response, it was clear you stated that you did not have them when, in fact, you did.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Struck. Mr. Love, you are instructed to refrain from speaking out of line. You previously indicated that you did not possess the chats I requested. Regardless of how you phrased your response, it was clear you stated that you did not have them when, in fact, you did.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Perjury requires intent. Why do we keep ignoring that in this Court? Oh and the statement has to be false. If forgetting something counts as lying, I guess we are all screwed.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Overruled.

 

[Jakovus]

Interrogatory
1. Isn't it true that the fair offer initially presented in this screenshot was denied by the plaintiff?

OBJECTION
Compound question

This question claims the offer was fair, and whether it was denied by the Plaintiff. It mustn't be phrased like so - The Plaintiff asks it be broken down or retracted, so that the Plaintiff may clearly respond to each one individually.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love response?

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM

Commonwealth of Redmont
Counterplaintiff

v.

smokeyybunnyyy
Counterdefendant

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
1. The Counterdefendant does not dispute the first fact, as in evidence provided it is not visible for how long the Defendant worked in the DOJ;
2. The Counterdefendant does not dispute the second fact, as the DOJ fills the Treasury, and thus its own budget, partially with criminal actions, not only with taxpayer's money.

DEFENSES
The request of the Counterplaintiff of $7,500 is out of every proportion, as the Commonwealth claims that AlexanderLove is only involved with this case and that he is using all of his energy on it. The Counterplaintiff is involved with other unfiled cases and material, which can be attested by prosecutors in the Department of Justice. This request is a frivolous one, and this counterclaim has no real standing, with questionable claim.

DATED: This 19th day of July, 2024

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Mr. Love response?

This is a loaded question, not a compound question. If I recall, you forced me to answer a loaded question by Ko before and charged me with perjury for addressing it. I believe that precedent should be upheld and the plaintiff be required to answer the question with a yes or no.

 

[Jakovus]

This is a loaded question, not a compound question. If I recall, you forced me to answer a loaded question by Ko before and charged me with perjury for addressing it. I believe that precedent should be upheld and the plaintiff be required to answer the question with a yes or no.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honour,

This statement speaks of potentially personal interactions unknown to the Plaintiff, from an irrelevant case, and is frankly being rude to this Court and our patience. The Plaintiff moves this be stricken and the Defendant given a second chance to provide an answer.

DATED: 20th July, 2024

 

[Alexander P. Love]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honour,

This statement speaks of potentially personal interactions unknown to the Plaintiff, from an irrelevant case, and is frankly being rude to this Court and our patience. The Plaintiff moves this be stricken and the Defendant given a second chance to provide an answer.

DATED: 20th July, 2024

Objection
Breach of Procedure

A response to the objection is not only warranted by court policy, it was requested by the presiding judge. This motion is baseless and there is no reason it should have been made.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Compound question

This question claims the offer was fair, and whether it was denied by the Plaintiff. It mustn't be phrased like so - The Plaintiff asks it be broken down or retracted, so that the Plaintiff may clearly respond to each one individually.

Overruled. This objection relates to witnesses, not interrogatories.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

This is a loaded question, not a compound question. If I recall, you forced me to answer a loaded question by Ko before and charged me with perjury for addressing it. I believe that precedent should be upheld and the plaintiff be required to answer the question with a yes or no.

Mr. Love, this is your one and only warning to refrain from being sassy or using the courtroom as a platform for unnecessary remarks.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honour,

This statement speaks of potentially personal interactions unknown to the Plaintiff, from an irrelevant case, and is frankly being rude to this Court and our patience. The Plaintiff moves this be stricken and the Defendant given a second chance to provide an answer.

DATED: 20th July, 2024

Overruled. However, Mr. Love, please maintain a professional demeanor.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

A response to the objection is not only warranted by court policy, it was requested by the presiding judge. This motion is baseless and there is no reason it should have been made.

Overruled.

 

[Jakovus]

Interrogatory
1. Isn't it true that the fair offer initially presented in this screenshot was denied by the plaintiff?

The presented offer was denied, yes.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Discovery has now concluded. We will proceed to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

ORDER VACATING PERJURY​

Upon thorough deliberation and review, I have decided to reverse the perjury charge against Mr. Love. While I do not appreciate any attempts to circumvent justice, in this instance, perjury was not the appropriate remedy under the law.

Unseatedduke1
Judge


Deadlines are still in effect.

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour,

As the Plaintiff had already touched on all of their core points, let's revisit them and show why the Defendant's unlawful inaction damaged my client.

As established by precedent, bids are contract proposals, and each is an individual, autonomous proposal. Each bid builds based on the previous, allowing auctions to be competitive and fair. If a contract proposal is not made bona fide, and if it is based on knowingly false information, it is not a contract, nor a proposal for one; it is an illegitimate, legally worthless piece of paper. Bids that are not supported by financial means of the bidder, made with intent to soley make an individual counter the bid with a higher one, is not a valid proposal, but a sham, and that is supported by DCT guidelines and practice. Those were the circumstances in which the Plaintiff found herself, and which this very Commonwealth failed to remedy. Since the invalid bids, i.e. invalid contract proposals, incurred a supposedly valid contract proposal by the Plaintiff, who acted bona fide, it is more than reasonable to argue that the Plaintiff was misled, and not able to clearly judge the situation.

Now, the Commonwealth steps in. Upon finding all of this out, the sensible and right decision was to strike the invalid bids. What it failed, though, is to recognise that the Plaintiff was fraudulently led to the last bid they posted, which was based on fraudulent bids. This failed to remedy malicious intents of some to make the Plaintiff unduly pay more than necessary to acquire the property. All the Commonwealth had to do was reverse the bids, and justice would have been rightly served. But it failed, and upon an appeal, doubled down.

Regarding the attempt to settle the case out-of-court, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff acted in a manner incompatible with an amicable resolution of differences, and that, in doing so, proved she is greedy and wants to win this case for money, and not to remedy damage done to her. Of course, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff, which the Defendant initially failed to provide (it should be duly noted that the Plaintiff's counsel, upon further consideration, agrees with the Court's overturn of the perjury charge), the Defendant acted grossly unprofessionally and in bad faith, belittling the case's merits and insulting the Plaintiff counsel's competence. It is for these reasons, as well as the opinion how the compensation provided was insufficient, that the Plaintiff retreated from the settlement.


DATED: This 23rd day of July, 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Defense has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor, @v__d and I are the new prosecutors on this case and would like to request an extension of 24 hours to familiarize ourselves with the case.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

Thank you, Your Honor.

DCT policy clearly dictates that the highest valid bid after an invalid bid wins the auction by default (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/eviction-auction-policy.17176/). The plaintiff’s bid was the highest valid bid after the invalid bid, and therefore is the default winner of the auction. Nowhere in DCT policy does it state that the next lower bid would win the auction, only the next higher bid.

It is the DCT’s job to regulate auctions under their jurisdiction, and they would be responsible for taking appropriate and legal action against the player who submitted a false bid. It is indeed the DCT’s legal remedy of this to issue a punishment to the player who bid without appropriate funds, however it is also the DCT’s responsibility to follow policy.

All bids submitted are legally binding. It would take a simple command in-game or even on the discord (/balance player) to check that the bidder’s bid was invalid. It is not unreasonable for a player to run a basic command on discord or in-game before bidding for a plot, especially with this much money being bid.

The plaintiff failed to do their duty of simply double checking before creating their bid and that is the reality of the situation. The DCT was simply following department policy.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@smokeyybunnyyy and @The_Superior10 is required to appear before the court in the case of smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont . Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.
​

 

[The_Superior10]

Present, your honor.

 

[smokeyybunnyyy]

Present, your honor

 

[Unseatedduke1]

@Jakovus You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to both witnesses at the same 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.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor, 24 hours have passed without a response from the plaintiff.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Indeed. Mr. Wolf, You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to both witnesses at the same 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.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The_Superior10:

1. What is the official policy of the DCT in regards to if a bid is invalid but there is a higher bid that had been filed?

 

[The_Superior10]

The_Superior10:

1. What is the official policy of the DCT in regards to if a bid is invalid but there is a higher bid that had been filed?

1. The higher bid (must be valid) is taken as the winning bid.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you, that is all.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statements.

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honour,

It is clear, from the case and evidence, that the State helped procure an illegal and illegitimate agreement, even after the Plaintiff warned the Commonwealth several times, through several means. The Plaintiff was tricked into giving out an unnecessarily higher bid, something reasonably expected they would not have done if they knew of the fraudulent bids prior. The State helped EddieGonza in their plan to force a higher payout by the Plaintiff when it refused to return the official bid of the Plaintiff back to the legitimate one, failing to recognise that the Plaintiff was not duly informed of the real situation when making an agreement offer. The Plaintiff was, thus, misled, and facts misrepresented to her. No one could have reasonably expected of her to anticipate this.

No one can reasonably expect her to go and track balances of other bidders. That is the job of DCT! Always was, and will be, because they are the ones responsible for making sure orderliness of auctions, their execution and legality. If that was not the case, and DCT turned a blind eye, that would open up the possibility of illegitimate bidding skyrocketing, as DCT is apparently not responsible for ensuring their legality.

The Government entered negotiations with the Plaintiff half-heartedly, in a vain and utterly disrespectful manner, and then accused the Plaintiff of sabotaging the settlement. It is only apparent that it was never the Government's goal to make the Plaintiff truly free of her damages. Now is the time for you, the Judge, to make sure the contract laws are upheld, that the Government start taking serious steps in protecting bidders from similar frauds, and to make sure the Government takes their role in protecting citizens seriously.

Thanks to all parties involved.

DATED: This 1st day of August, 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The defense has 72 hours to submit their closing statements.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

Thank you, Your Honor.

This case is quite simple. The DCT was only following their policy when deciding the outcome of the auction.

DCT policy clearly states that the highest bid after an invalid bid wins the auction (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/eviction-auction-policy.17176/). The plaintiff’s bid was the highest bid after the invalid bid, and therefore is the winner of the auction. The witness called, an employee of the DCT, confirmed this.

This case is simple, let’s stick to written policy.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Court is recess pending verdict.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103

I. PLAINTIFFS POSITION
1. The Plaintiff argues that during the auction for plot C514, fraudulent bids from a third party, EddieGonza420, artificially raised the bid amounts. This misled the Plaintiff into placing a higher bid of $18,000, which should have been reverted to the last legitimate bid of $15,000 once the fraudulent bids were annulled. The Plaintiff claims that the Department of Construction and Transport failed to apply its own guidelines and precedent consistently, thus breaching the Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution.


II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff entered a valid bid of $18,000, which constitutes a legally binding agreement. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff should have verified the validity of competing bids before increasing their own. The Defendant also contends that the DCT is not bound by its own precedent, and its actions do not violate the equality clause of the Constitution. The Defendant maintains that DCT policy explicitly states that bids cannot be retracted.


III. THE COURT OPINION

1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public. The court acknowledges that the defense did not contest the facts of the case, effectively affirming the sequence of events as described by the plaintiff. With these facts established, the court must now address the legal questions before it.
2. Every department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations. For the Department of Construction and Transport, this includes the responsibility to conduct auctions fairly and in strict accordance with its guidelines. In the auction for plot R050, the DCT annulled an invalid bid that did not meet its guidelines and allowed the plaintiff to secure the property based on their last valid bid. The critical question here is why the DCT did not apply the same standard in the auction of plot C514, where similar circumstances were present. The defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy. This inconsistency represents a breach of the DCT’s duty to apply its policies fairly and equally across all auctions.
3. The fraudulent bids placed by EddieGonza420 misled the plaintiff into raising their bid, constituting what is known as fraudulent inducement. Since these bids were not permitted under DCT policy, they should have been invalidated, and the plaintiff’s subsequent bids should not have been considered, as they were made under the false belief that EddieGonza420’s bids were legitimate.
4. The combination of fraudulent inducement and the DCT’s failure to apply its policies consistently across similar auctions constitutes a breach of duty that has resulted in damages to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between the higher bid they were misled into making and the last legitimate bid.
5. However, the court will not grant the plaintiff’s requests for punitive and emotional damages. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a claim for emotional damages, such as witness testimony or photo evidence. The court declines to award punitive damages, considering the Commonwealth’s demonstrated willingness to settle the case out of court for an amount exceeding the difference in bids, which reflects an effort to remedy the situation.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 103, the court rules in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer for relief.

1. The difference between the higher and lower bid shall be refunded to the Plaintiff, amounting to $3,000.
2. $1,000 in legal fees granted to Jakovus.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.