Lawsuit: In Session PileOfCorgis v. AmericanBozo [2026] DCR 78

NoMoreUno

NoMoreUno

Citizen
NoMoreUno
NoMoreUno
Attorney
Joined
May 27, 2026
Messages
34

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

PileOfCorgis (Represented independently by NoMoreUno)
Plaintiff

v.

AmericanBozo
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, PileOfCorgis, comes forward with the following complaint against AmericanBozo:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On 5/31/26, the plaintiff, PileOfCorgis, asked how one would go about finding an apartment in in-game chat. The plaintiff was contacted by the defendant, AmericanBozo, who offered the plaintiff- the plaintiff being, at the time, a new player, who had just joined the server for the first time- assistance in finding an apartment. The defendant found the plaintiff an apartment at rt-east05. This apartment was listed as being leased for $20.00 per 14 days, as per the for lease sign outside of the property. Upon arrival at the apartment, the realtor requested to be paid $175.00 for his services despite no previous agreement for payment being reached and no fees being disclosed upfront. As an oblivious player with perhaps an hour of playtime (and thus a player with little to no knowledge of how realty worked), the plaintiff paid the defendant the requested sum and was leased the apartment for 14 days, despite having paid a sum equivalent to 122.5 days of rent.

The plaintiff has not been refunded the $155.00 in excess payment. The defendant was contacted in regards to why such a sum was charged and did not respond.

I. PARTIES
1. PileOfCorgis (Plaintiff)
2. AmericanBozo (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff was contacted by the defendant in response to an inquiry in general chat and was asked if the plaintiff was interested in realty services.

2. The plaintiff had joined the server for the first time this very same day and thus lacked basic knowledge of realty.

3. The plaintiff agreed to deal with the defendant with a maximum budget of $200.00, assuming that the budget was for solely the apartment and not for any realty fees.

4. Prior to payment, no agreement regarding paying the defendant had been made or even hinted at. The plaintiff was never referred to as the defendant’s client.

5. Upon arrival at the apartment, the defendant requested to be paid $175.00. While this was within the budget that the plaintiff had given the defendant, the sign outside of the apartment explicitly leased it for only $20.00, and no fee for the finding of an apartment had been disclosed.

6. Due to their unfamiliarity with the workings of realty, the plaintiff paid the defendant the requested sum.

7. Despite paying enough money to rent the property for 122 days, provided the rate given on the apartment sign was accurate, the plaintiff was only given 14 days of rent.

8. The defendant has not responded to inquiries regarding why such a sum was charged.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Given the plaintiff’s low playtime, it is true that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to enter a formal contract; indeed, no contract of any kind was made beforehand. However, according to the Redmont Civil Code Act, contract torts apply to “violations arising from contractual relationships, financial transactions, commercial dealings, and consumer protection. “ As such, while no contract had been established beforehand, the exchange of money for a service:
1) allows the plaintiff to categorize themself as a consumer and
2) categorizes the event as a financial transaction.
As such all civil violations applicable to financial transactions and the protection of the consumer (the contract torts) are applicable to this case.

2. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is a contract tort defined as behavior that ”engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.“ The behavior of the defendant- namely, leading the Defendant to a property listed as $20.00 only to request a higher sum- sought to purposefully deceive the plaintiff, who lacked knowledge of proper realty pricing, into believing that $175.00 was the proper cost of the apartment. Nothing indicates that the price listed on the apartment’s sign was puffery, and the plaintiff exercised reasonable care to the extent of which they were capable, considering that they had just joined the server and thus had limited information in regards to the regular proceedings of realty.

3. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is defined as where a person “fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.“ The plaintiff paid the defendant more than legally required for purchase of the apartment- in fact, taking the alleged rate of $20.00 for 14 days into consideration, the plaintiff should have been given more than a third-of-a-year's worth time in rent. However, the plaintiff was only given 14 days of time in rent. While no formal contract was made, a rate of $20.00 per 14 days can be rationally derived solely from the for lease notice outside of the apartment, and, given this rate, the plaintiff should have been given 122 days of lease. This amount of time was not supplied to the plaintiff, and thus the service the realtor offered was not delivered.

4. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont describes “Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.“ While when taken at face value, a loss of $155.00 doesn’t seem to be exceedingly detrimental to one’s ability to engage in activities, it must be taken into consideration that the defendant had joined the server for the first time as of 5/31/26- which is the day the event occurred. A new player’s starting balance is $300 upon first joining the server, $600 upon receiving their first profession, and $900 upon obtaining a passport. The plaintiff, with under six hours of playtime, could not have obtained a passport, so their balance as of this event could not have exceeded $600 (in addition to any money they may have obtained with one hour of playtime; a sum that can reasonably be assumed to be trivial). An unexpected loss of $155.00 is equivalent to a loss of nearly 25% of the plaintiff’s net worth. The loss of such a significant chunk of money deprived the plaintiff of their ability to enjoy their starting balance, which they would have otherwise had full access to. In addition to this, as this was one of the plaintiff’s first transactions, this set the precedent that tradesmen were not to be trusted, thus robbing the plaintiff of their ability to fully engage in future trade with trust and confidence.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Either $155.00 in recompense or an additional 108 days in rent, as allotted by specific performance as restitution under Failure to Deliver Goods or Services.
2. $12,500.00, as allotted by Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.
3. $1,500.00 as consequential damage, as allotted by Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
4. $12,500, as allotted by Failure to Deliver Goods and Services.
5. Any other restitution that the court sees as right and just.



P-001: The status of the apartment as of 06/04/26 (still labeled as for lease), as well as the original price

Screenshot 2026-06-04 010737.png

P-002: Transaction history showing that the plaintiff did, in fact, pay the defendant $175.00
Screenshot 2026-06-04 214412.png

P-003: DMs showing that the defendant has not responded to any further inquiries about the apartment as of 6/04/26
Screenshot 2026-06-04 215922.png

P-004: The plaintiff's playtime as of 6/04/26. Plaintiff attests, under penalty of perjury, that as of 5/31/26, playtime was "an hour at most" and has since increased.

1780632290005.png

P-005: The amount of time that the plaintiff has been leased the apartment for (as of 6/04/26)
Screenshot 2026-06-04 221855.png

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 fourth day of June, 2026

Screenshot 2026-06-03 234504.png

 
Last edited:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Show Cause - PileOfCorgis v. AmericanBozo [2026] DCR XX

On a brief review of the Complaint, the Court identifies a prayer issue that may lead to an unfavourable partial dismissal.

The Prayer for Relief invokes Failure to Deliver Goods or Services twice. Item 1 seeks $155.00 in restitution, or specific performance of 108 additional days of rent, under that cause of action. Item 4 seeks a separate $12,500.00 award under the same cause of action. This raises the question of impermissible double recovery on a single claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, Prayers 1 and 4 for Relief do not constitute impermissible double recovery for a single alleged instance of Failure to Deliver Goods or Services.


Please offer a response within 72 Hours.

 
I apologize for the mistake. This is the first formal case that I've filed and, in my naive eagerness, I was not careful enough with double-checking for issues like this. I'd like to, if possible, remove the request for $12,500 in favor of the $155.00 restitution/extension on rent period. If need be, I can refile this case.
 
NoMoreUno said:
I apologize for the mistake. This is the first formal case that I've filed and, in my naive eagerness, I was not careful enough with double-checking for issues like this. I'd like to, if possible, remove the request for $12,500 in favor of the $155.00 restitution/extension on rent period. If need be, I can refile this case.
Click to expand...

No need to refile, you can edit out the one you wish to remove.
 

Writ of Summons

@AmericanBozo is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of PileOfCorgis v. AmericanBozo [2026] DCR 78.

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.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

72 hours have passed since the defendant was summoned to appear in front of the court. The defendant has failed to respond, and thus default judgement should be granted.

 

Answer to Complaint


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

PileOfCorgies
Plaintiff

v.

AmericanBozo
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM The plaintiff was contacted by the defendant in response to an inquiry in general chat and was asked if the plaintiff was interested in realty services.

2. DENY The plaintiff had joined the server for the first time this very same day and thus lacked basic knowledge of realty.

3. DENY The plaintiff agreed to deal with the defendant with a maximum budget of $200.00, assuming that the budget was for solely the apartment and not for any realty fees.

4. DENY Prior to payment, no agreement regarding paying the defendant had been made or even hinted at. The plaintiff was never referred to as the defendant’s client.

5. AFFIRM Upon arrival at the apartment, the defendant requested to be paid $175.00. While this was within the budget that the plaintiff had given the defendant, the sign outside of the apartment explicitly leased it for only $20.00, however DENY that no fee for the finding of an apartment had been disclosed.

6. AFFIRM the plaintiff paid the defendant the requested sum, however DENY that this was because due to their unfamiliarity with the workings of realty.

7. AFFIRM that technically, despite paying enough money to rent the property for 122 days, provided the rate given on the apartment sign was accurate, the plaintiff was only given 14 days of rent, while NOTING that simply having paid that amount of money is not indicative that the entire payment was for rental of the property.

8. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY The defendant has not responded to inquiries regarding why such a sum was charged.

II. DEFENSES
1. Although the Plaintiff's playtime may have been low, this is not indicative of them lacking "basic knowledge of realty." Even if it is, the fees allegedly imposed are reasonable.

2. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff and Defendant made a deal, only of a single payment between them.

3. Even if there was a deal, there is no evidence that "the budget was for solely the apartment and not for any realty fees."

4. Even if there was a deal, there is no evidence that "no agreement regarding paying the defendant had been made or even hinted at. The plaintiff was never referred to as the defendant’s client."

5. Even if there was a deal, there is no evidence that "no fee for the finding of an apartment had been disclosed."

6. The Redmont Civil Code Act does not actually permit individuals to seek Civil Penalty Units in damages, nullifying the following Prayer for Relief:

2. $12,500.00, as allotted by Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.
Click to expand...

7. Even if all the Plaintiff's allegations are true, there was no coercion or scam taking place to get the payment. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant "requested to be paid $175." It is not illegal to request a donation after doing someone a kind service. The Defense would ask the Plaintiff to describe how they came to such a conclusion.

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 19th day of June 2026.

 

Motion


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

The Defense moves to dismiss Prayer For Relief 2 ($12,500.00, as allotted by Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Perhaps this belongs under Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. I'm not certain.

There is no law which permits monetary damages for "Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce." Notably, the Redmont Civil Code Act defines it as a Civil Offense with the following Remedy:

Up to 250 Civil Penalty Units; Rescission
Click to expand...

However, Civil Penalty Units are defined as
units [that] are attributable to a dollar amount and are used as a standardised method for calculating monetary fines under this Code and other Acts of Congress.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Fines are paid to the Government, not other citizens. Perhaps, if there was a contract (which there is no evidence of), rescission of the contract could be a valid remedy, but $12,500 is not.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


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

The Defense moves to dismiss Prayer For Relief 2 ($12,500.00, as allotted by Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Perhaps this belongs under Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. I'm not certain.

There is no law which permits monetary damages for "Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce." Notably, the Redmont Civil Code Act defines it as a Civil Offense with the following Remedy:


However, Civil Penalty Units are defined as

(emphasis added)

Fines are paid to the Government, not other citizens. Perhaps, if there was a contract (which there is no evidence of), rescission of the contract could be a valid remedy, but $12,500 is not.

Click to expand...

Your Honor, the Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to respond to the Defense's Motion to Dismiss.
 

Motion


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

A Response to the Defense's Motion to Dismiss Prayer for Relief 2

The Defense's Motion to Dismiss does not take error with the actual claim itself; rather, it takes issue with the technical definition of 'fine', citing that civil penalty units may not be issued as remedy to other civilians, as fines are only issued to the government. Previous court cases have set precedents that contradict this idea.

In laygoes v. Zombie_bro_ [2026] DCR 44, $20,000 were fined for Failure to Deliver Goods and Services. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services has a remedy of "Up to 200 Civil Penalty Units; Specific performance". The remedy of specific performance was not cited; rather, the $20,000 fine came from the maximum 200 civil penalty units. This $20,000 went to the plaintiff laygoes, showing that civil penalty units can be used as remedy to citizens. In fact, the verdict of this case explicitly affirms this- in the words of the judge, in a case like this, or, one that uses civil penalty units as punishment- "we turn to the Redmont Civil Code Act Part 3, Section 1.3, which states that where a violation specifies a specific remedy, such as Failure to deliver goods and services, granting a specific remedy of up to 200 Civil Penalty Units, or $20,000, the number requested by the Plaintiff. This establishes that the Prayer for Relief is valid. "

In SimplifiedMax v. L4ndaakk [2026] DCR 28, Failure to Deliver Goods was again brought forward as a charge. The plaintiff here sought $20,000 in monetary damages under Failure to Deliver Goods- again, damages that can be deduced to be from civil penalty units. While the plaintiff was not awarded $20,000, this was not because of the principle of civil penalty units being used as fines; rather, it was because the defendant won the case, and the $20,000 in civil penalty units were added on to the total value of the case when legal fees were being considered, again proving that civil penalty units can contribute to the total remedies of a case.

In neither of these cases was the use of civil penalty units contested by opposing counsel, or by any judge- contrawise, they were validated by the delivered verdicts.

The fact that Failure to Deliver Goods and Services is not Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce does not matter, as the Motion does not address Misleading Conduct specifically; rather, it takes issue with the underlying idea of civil penalty units being used as penalties on citizens. Moreover, the Defense acknowledges that the remedy for Misleading Conduct is "Up to 250 Civil Penalty Units; Rescission". Civil penalty units are available as remedy under both Failure to Deliver Goods and Services and Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce, and no clear reason exists as to why Failure to Deliver Goods and Services should be treated differently in regards to civil penalty units being used as relief when they're listed as remedy under both.

The plaintiff anticipates the response that in both of these cases, contracts were involved. This should not matter. The Defense is not contesting that Failure to Deliver Goods and Services is an invalid claim because of lack of contract- if so, they should have stated such. They are, again, contesting the actual use of civil penalty units as restitution, which the Plaintiff has proven is valid as remedy. This remedy stays valid regardless of whether or not a contract was involved.

The precedent set by these cases- that civil penalty units can be used by independent civilians as a valid method of restitution- disproves the Defense's claim that fines arising from civil penalty units may be not paid to civilians.

 
I want to keep this case moving as I decide this motion to dismiss. We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 5 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early)​

If both parties consent to end Discovery early, they may request the presiding Judicial Officer to move to the next phase of the trial.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS LIST + MOTION TO END DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff submits the following witness list.
- corgipile

corgipile (PileOfCorgis) will attest to his firsthand experience renting an apartment with the defendant- what he was told to do, what he knew of during this transaction, and the aftermath.

This witness, in conjunction with the exhibits initially involved in the complaint, is all the evidence the Plaintiff wishes to submit during discovery.

If the Defense has no objection, the Plaintiff wishes to end discovery early.

 
Your Honor, the deadline for Discovery was 6/27/26. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant requested an extension of Discovery, and none was given. As of 7/1/26- four days past the given deadline- no official statement has been made closing Discovery, even though the 5 days given has passed.

Even though the closure of Discovery has not been officially acknowledged, given that the timeframe allotted has passed, it has inarguably ended. When may we expect deadlines for opening statements?
 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


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

The Defense moves to dismiss Prayer For Relief 2 ($12,500.00, as allotted by Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Perhaps this belongs under Rule 2.1 - Standing Application. I'm not certain.

There is no law which permits monetary damages for "Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce." Notably, the Redmont Civil Code Act defines it as a Civil Offense with the following Remedy:


However, Civil Penalty Units are defined as

(emphasis added)

Fines are paid to the Government, not other citizens. Perhaps, if there was a contract (which there is no evidence of), rescission of the contract could be a valid remedy, but $12,500 is not.

Click to expand...
This is denied. Past case law has established, at a minimum, that civil units can be awarded. I need more argumentation for why civil penalty units should be given only to the government. As such, this issue is not ripe for adjudication at the motion to dismiss stage, and I will be denying this motion at the present time.
 
Matthew100x said:
This is denied. Past case law has established, at a minimum, that civil units can be awarded. I need more argumentation for why civil penalty units should be given only to the government. As such, this issue is not ripe for adjudication at the motion to dismiss stage, and I will be denying this motion at the present time.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

While past case law has established that Civil Units can be awarded, this is an error of law, and one that the Court today must correct.

The Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) clearly states in Section 3(1) the following remedies available for Civil Offenses:

(a) Up to x amount of civil penalty units
(b) Restitution
(c) Specific performance
(d) Disqualification
(f) Reinstatement
(g) Compliance order
(h) Any other specific order or remedy
(i) No Fixed Remedy
Click to expand...

Notably, restitution is a separate remedy from civil penalty units. If Congress had intended for Civil Penalty Units to be paid to the Plaintiff of Civil Cases, they would not have separately included restitution as a potential remedy.

This, combined with the aforementioned analysis of the fact that fines are payable to the Government, makes it clear that Civil Penalty Units are not valid for a Civil Complaint, unless the complaint was filed by the Government.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


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

While past case law has established that Civil Units can be awarded, this is an error of law, and one that the Court today must correct.

The Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) clearly states in Section 3(1) the following remedies available for Civil Offenses:


Notably, restitution is a separate remedy from civil penalty units. If Congress had intended for Civil Penalty Units to be paid to the Plaintiff of Civil Cases, they would not have separately included restitution as a potential remedy.

This, combined with the aforementioned analysis of the fact that fines are payable to the Government, makes it clear that Civil Penalty Units are not valid for a Civil Complaint, unless the complaint was filed by the Government.

Click to expand...

Response



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defense's new claim alleges that restitution is a seperate remedy from civil penalty units- a fact which the Plaintiff does not contest. It is true that restitution and civil penalty units are two different things. Restitution is reimbursement for damages, whereas civil penalty units calculate fines for breach of the law. The Defense says:

"If Congress had intended for Civil Penalty Units to be paid to the Plaintiff of Civil Cases, they would not have separately included restitution as a potential remedy."
Click to expand...
This is a strange thing to say, since restitution and civil penalty units are entirely different. Restitution is reimbursement for monetary damages; civil penalty units are fees that apply to punish an action, not to reimburse. Congress presumably did not include restitution as a remedy to entirely take the place of civil penalty units in non-government cases, but rather as a way to pursue reimbursement of damages. Much the same, Congress presumably included civil penalty units as a way to punish an action, and not to reimburse. The two are inherently different, and thus the idea that the mere existence of one in law disproves the validity of another is void.

This entire complaint likely arises from the fact that in the Plaintiff's initial response, they used less-than-clear language; an error to which the Plaintiff admits and now wishes to correct. The Plaintiff stated in their conclusion that, quote,
civil penalty units can be used by independent civilians as a valid method of restitution
Click to expand...
This was not meant to suggest that civil penalty units were to be a stand-in for restitution- restitution as a remedy is not even available under Misleading Conduct, hence why the language was used- it was assumed that the context of the situation could be gathered and the correct definition of the word could be drawn. Restitution here meant its dictionary definition of "a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury"- civil penalty units can be used a fine to make right an offense.

This addresses the first half of the Defense's Motion.

The latter half of the Defense's Motion states that, quote,
This, combined with the aforementioned analysis of the fact that fines are payable to the Government, makes it clear that Civil Penalty Units are not valid for a Civil Complaint, unless the complaint was filed by the Government.
Click to expand...
The Defense cites an analysis that justifies fines being only payable to the government, despite prior case law indicating otherwise. Such an analysis cannot be found in the first Motion to Dismiss, nor the Motion to Reconsider- such an analysis does not exist. The closest thing given is a one-line statement saying that 'Fines are paid to the Government, not other citizens' with no justification. Citing it is null.

Both of these things aside, perhaps most damningly of all for this Motion to Reconsider, the Defense does not once address why the precedents set by SimplifiedMax v. L4ndaakk [2026] DCR 28 or laygoes v. Zombie_bro_ [2026] DCR 44 should be disregarded in this case in particular. The court acknowledges that "past case law has established, at a minimum, that civil units can be awarded", and that more argumentation is needed to establish why penalty units should only be given to the government. The Defense provides an argument and a nonexistent analysis. All the argument ends up saying is that fines and restitution are different; the justification that restitution cancels penalty units has been disproven, and as no analysis exists, no other evidence is offered to refute the precedent.

These reasons should be more than sufficient to deny the Defense's Motion to Reconsider.

 
Last edited:
Requesting a 24-hour extension as tomorrow is the 4th of July and I have obligations.

EDIT: Unneeded
 
Last edited:

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Imagine, for a brief moment, that you are not a well-established Justice. Imagine, instead, that you are a new player- a player who has just joined the server in the midst of one of the largest 'waves' that DemocracyCraft has ever seen. Imagine that you've recieved an initial $600 for joining the server and acquiring a Trade. Imagine wanting to find an apartment to call your own. Imagine the feeling of excitement arising when you find a willing realtor, and the bloating of this feeling when this realtor informs you they've found a property for you. Imagine how pleasant it must be to find out that this property only costs $20 per 14 days. Now envision the onset of confusion that must have arrived when this realtor asks you for $175- a sum much larger than $20.

What would you have done in this scenario, had you the knowledge of a new player? What PileOfCorgis did was pay his realtor $175, despite no such sum being merited by any kind of agreement.

This is a clear, open-and-shut case- a case where the Defendant's predatory and deceitful behavior severely damaged the Plaintiff's intial impression of DemocracyCraft and deprived him of a significant portion of his starting balance.

We know that Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is defined as behavior that ”engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.“ The Defendant intentionally lied to a gullible, susceptible Plaintiff in order to make a quick sale at a price greater than the listed value of a property. The price of the apartment rt-east05 was listed as $20 per 14 days, yet the Plaintiff was charged $175 as demanded by the Defendant. This meets the criteria for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce- in order to pedal their apartments, the Defendant blatantly lied about the true cost, and the Plaintiff’s inexperience allowed this deception to occur.

We also know that Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont describes “Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm." As a result of the Defendant's deception, the Plaintiff lost their ability to fully utilize their starting balance. Perhaps more importantly, as this was one of the Plaintiff’s first commercial transactions, the precedent was set that realtors were not to be trusted- and thus the plaintiff was robbed of their ability to engage in realty free of skepticism. The Plaintiff suffered a Loss of Enjoyment, then, as their ability to engage in realty and their ability to fully enjoy the balance granted to new players was severely diminished.

The Defense does not deny that $175.00 was requested. The Defense does not deny that the apartment was listed as costing $20.00. The Defense does not contest that the Plaintiff paid $175.00 to the Defendant. The Defense does not deny that the Plaintiff was given less time renting the property than they were entitled to. Even if the rest of the facts were to be assumed false- even if we were to assume that a player with an hour of playtime knew how realty worked, even in spite of the witness testimony that will be provided- these facts should prove that the Defendant was overcharged and received less than he was entitled to, regardless or not of whether he knew the inner workings of realty or if he was a client.

In spite of these facts, the Defense will allege that there was no deal between the Plaintiff and Defendant, even though direct messages between the two show that there was at the very least some kind of communication for a transaction. They will argue that, even if there was a transaction, the fees imposed were ‘reasonable’, even though they were not mentioned beforehand and the price of the apartment was explicitly listed as $20. They will argue that this payment was merely a donation for a service, even though in exchange for this 'donation' the Defendant received a property. They will argue that a player with an hour of playtime knew the workings of realty and knew what they were being charged for. They will argue that just because the Plaintiff gave a budget, the Defendant is entitled to as much of that as they wish simply as a “finding fee” or a “donation”.

These arguments ignore the facts- that the Plaintiff had over 25% of their starting balance taken via an undisclosed fee, and that said fee was only complied with due to inexperience and lack of knowledge; and, that in addition to this, the granted amount of rent was not what should have been given. This should be sufficient to prove that all alleged is true, and that the Defendant is GUILTY.

 
Last edited:
Your Honor,

due to the Actions taken by xEndeavour yesterday, the Public Defender Union has decided and announced in #global, that the Public Defender Union is on strike until the demands of the DOE are satisfied. As a Public Defender, I'm part of this Union.
 
KeyChunky321 said:
Your Honor,

due to the Actions taken by xEndeavour yesterday, the Public Defender Union has decided and announced in #global, that the Public Defender Union is on strike until the demands of the DOE are satisfied. As a Public Defender, I'm part of this Union.
Click to expand...
Well considering you're in Court representing a client on their behalf as a public defender, I am not going to allow this. Your client has a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, and you are placing your own interests (and, on that logic, the rest of the public defender's office) above that of the client. Failure to follow court procedures will result in contempt of court and appropriate sanctions. Please file your client's opening statement.
 
Matthew100x said:
TomaWell considering you're in Court representing a client on their behalf as a public defender, I am not going to allow this. Your client has a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, and you are placing your own interests (and, on that logic, the rest of the public defender's office) above that of the client. Failure to follow court procedures will result in contempt of court and appropriate sanctions. Please file your client's opening statement.
Click to expand...
Booooooo 🍅
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top