Lawsuit: Dismissed patato12 v. The Department of the Interior (DOI)

Status
Not open for further replies.
emry38

emry38

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Joined
Sep 9, 2026
Messages
3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

patato12
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of the Interior (DOI)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff: patato12
2. Defendant: The Department of the Interior (DOI)

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On Thursday at 10:08 PM, the DOI posted a public tender for materials ("Atomic Park Tender - Wood"). The official details card stated that bidding would end 1 day after the last bid.
2. The Plaintiff placed an initial valid bid of $2,000.
3. About an hour after that bid, the DOI edited the post to change the rules, extending the bidding window to 48 hours.
4. This edit was completely unannounced and undocumented. The DOI gave no notice to active bidders anywhere in the post or comments.
5. After this unannounced edit, a player named Frodo placed a competing bid.
6. The Plaintiff, unaware of the rule change, placed a new bid of $1,800. This bid stood completely unchallenged for a full 35 hours and 19 minutes.
7. Under the original rules, the bidding should have permanently closed and been awarded to the Plaintiff after standing for 24 hours.
8. Due to the unlawful extension, a player named Saamdoestuff has since placed an invalid late bid after the original deadline already expired.
9. The Plaintiff has already gathered a large chest of the required logs and saplings in reliance on the original contract terms.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Tender Terms: The Defendant failed to honor its own advertised 1-day bidding closure window.
2. Unlawful Retroactivity: A government department cannot retroactively apply post-edits to change the rules after valid bids are already placed.
3. Contra Proferentem Principle: Because the Defendant wrote a confusing post with conflicting rules, server common law dictates that any ambiguity must be interpreted in favor of the citizen, not the government.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff requests the Court grant the following remedies under the Legal Damages Act:
1. Specific Performance: Order the DOI to immediately award the contract to the Plaintiff.
2. Additional Tender Bonus: Order that the Plaintiff be awarded the 25% delivery bonus, as he was fully prepared to deliver all resources within the 48-hour window.
3. Alternative Damages: If the contract cannot be awarded, grant the Plaintiff the full financial value of the contract payload, the 25% bonus value, plus the market value of the gathered resources.
4. Legal Fees: Award a 30% addition to the total case value to cover the Plaintiff's legal representation fees.

V. WITNESSES
1. None at this time.

Dated: September 28, 2026
Respectfully Submitted,
emry38, Solicitor for the Plaintiff
 

Attachments

  • Tender.PNG
    Tender.PNG
    32 KB · Views: 43
  • 1790601160247.png
    1790601160247.png
    280.1 KB · Views: 28
  • 1790601190111.png
    1790601190111.png
    20.1 KB · Views: 32
  • 1790601212632.png
    1790601212632.png
    19.2 KB · Views: 37
  • 1790614137802.png
    1790614137802.png
    55.2 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains multiple deficiencies which must be remedied before the Court can issue summons. The Court orders that the Plaintiff remedy the following:

1. The Complaint is improperly formatted. Rule 3.1 mandates that “All Complaints… must use the appropriate ‘Creating a Lawsuit’ format,” that format being the one listed in Guide - Templates. Most especially, the Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks the case tags.

2. Throughout the entirety of the Complaint, there is not one citation of law or precedent. The Court has no responsibility to find what laws may apply to the Plaintiff’s case or claims. The Court is not aware of a Civil Violation of “Breach of Tender Terms,” “Unlawful Retroactivity,” or “Contra Profeterum Principle.” Plaintiff is ordered to find applicable Civil Violations contained within the Redmont Civil Code Act to replace their non-existent Claims of Relief.

3. Likewise, two of Plaintiff’s Prayers of Relief do not exist within Redmont Law; upon what grounds are “Additional Tender Bonus” and “Alternative Damages” claimed? And what is “server common law”? This server has statutes pertaining to all Civil matters, read them! Find applicable Prayers to Claim within Part III of the RCCA.

4. All evidence is improperly submitted. Rule 4.6 requires that all evidence be labeled using (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###). Look at How to File a Lawsuit for more information about formatting rules, I personally expect all formatting suggestions and instructions within it to be followed.

5. Where is the Written Statement? Again, Rule 3.1 requires all Complaints to follow a specific template, which includes a written statement by the Plaintiff. It must, therefore, be included.

6. Fact 1 of the Complaint states that a tender was posted “On Thursday at 10:08 PM.” Which Thursday? This last Thursday, a Thursday that was 10 years ago? And 10:08 PM in what timezone? These details must be specified in Plaintiff’s Complaint, it cannot be this vague.

All of these changes must be submitted to the Court in a Motion to Amend detailing what changes will be made to fix the Complaint. Given the extent of the changes, Plaintiff will be expected to detail each individual edit by putting all text being removed in red and all text being added in green.

Plaintiff has 48 hours to comply with this order or this action shall be dismissed.

So Ordered.

 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - WARNING

Plaintiff patato12 is hereby warned to not attempt to communicate with the Presiding Officer about this case in any manner outside of this court thread. Rule 1.4.1.1, a standing order of the courts, explicitly states that "All communications relevant to any ongoing case towards a presiding officer by any party to that case must be in a court-sanctioned forum."

Any further attempts to communicate in an improper manner will result in being held in Contempt, and potentially referral to the DOJ for Criminal Prosecution.

IMG_3210.jpeg

So Ordered.
Judge CreeperTD

 

Motion​


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

The plaintiff would like to motion for a dismissal without prejudice

1. My lawyer has been given two opportunities to file this case and has been unsuccessful both times.
2. The court has graciously pointed out numerous errors within the legal filing and as an aggrieved party i would like to take longer than the 48 hours to properly consult an experienced lawyer and properly file a lawsuit.
3. Allow proper time to consult experienced lawyers and see if this is even a pursuable case
 
Patato said:

Motion​


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

The plaintiff would like to motion for a dismissal without prejudice

1. My lawyer has been given two opportunities to file this case and has been unsuccessful both times.
2. The court has graciously pointed out numerous errors within the legal filing and as an aggrieved party i would like to take longer than the 48 hours to properly consult an experienced lawyer and properly file a lawsuit.
3. Allow proper time to consult experienced lawyers and see if this is even a pursuable case
Click to expand...
The court will treat this as a Motion to Nolle Prosequi, and grants it. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top