Lawsuit: Dismissed Creeperkid365 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 15

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Creeperkid365 (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff


V


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The plaintiff complains about the defendant as follows:
Due to a technical error, despite accruing over 5 hours in playtime since October (the statute of limitations time), Creeperkid365 was arrested by Officer DimpledRobin for a murder committed in that month on January 24th. The officer even clarified that the crime was in fact performed several months before. My client has already amassed over 5 hours of playtime (exhibit A) in the last 30 days, and witnesses of the incident can confirm that Creeperkid365 had been online for over 5 hours between the murder and when the arrest occurred. Therefore, his jailing was unlawful.

I.PARTIES

1. Creeperkid365 (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. Landoplayzo (Witness)
4. Kxtoika (Witness)
5. Spiin16 (Witness)

II.FACTS

1. Creeperkid365 was arrested for a murder committed in September
2. Creeperkid365 had amassed over 5 hours since the murder was committed
3. Creeperkid365 was jailed for this murder

III.CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Although it may have been an error, the facts don’t lie. My client was jailed for a murder that the Statute of Limitations protected him from.
2. My client has experienced serious emotional damage and is still distressed about this incident today.

IV.PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

1. $50 per minute jailed ($500)
2. $10,000 in emotional damage
3. $10,000 in loss of enjoyment
4. $4,100 in legal fees

V.EVIDENCE


Exhibit A:

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I issue summons, how long since the murder has it been?

 

[Towloo]

Your honor, unfortunately, I do not have access to the exact date. However, I do know that the murder was committed in mid-October.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, I will issue summons momentarily.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@xLayzur (Attorney General) is required to appear before the court in the case of the Creeperkid365 v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Anthony]

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

Creeperkid365
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. In order for your wanted point to be dropped, you need to be on for five (5) consecutive hours. For example, your /seen needs to be 5+ hours. The plaintiff in Exhibit A is showing their playtime within the last 30 days and their total playtime which does not matter in this case.
2. The plaintiff also claims for loss of enjoyment and emotional distress. The plantiff was jailed legally as they were not on for five (5) consecutive hours and therefore loss of enjoyment and emotional distress does not come into factor here.

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 February 2024

 

[Towloo]

May I respond, your honor?

 

[RelaxedGV]

You may, you have 72 hours to respond.

 

[Towloo]

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


Creeperkid365 (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff


V


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS:

1. Opposing counsel has violated rule 5.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures guide (Information - Court Rules and Procedures). Instead, they have only stated arguments in favor of the defendant.

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 10th day of February, 2024

 

[Anthony]

You're honor.
Rule 5.2 of the Court Rules and Procedures Guide says that

A Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at anytime prior to the beginning of opening statements.

The defense is making a motion to dismiss when being summoned on the grounds of that the plaintiff was clearly legally arrested. Rule 5.1 states that

Rule 5.1 (Rule Specification)​

A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions.

The plaintiff already submitted evidence and facts above when they created their lawsuit, therefore the defense did not break rule 5.1.

 

[Towloo]

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


Creeperkid365 (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff


V


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


MOTION TO STRIKE:

1. Opposing counsel has spoken without being motioned to by the judge, and therefore has broken procedure

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

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I rule on the Motion to Dismiss, does the Plaintiff have any proof of when the crime happened that they can present? If not, any proof the Plaintiff was on for 5 hours consecutively?

As for the Motion to Strike, I will actually be overruling this as the statements were made to shed light and show that if anything the Response is completely unable to be taken into account given the entire Motion to Dismiss is made on grounds for breaking a Court Rule when the Motion to Dismiss has not.

 

[Towloo]

I don't have physical evidence of my client being on for 5 hours consecutively, however, this proof is not needed as when being wanted the message states "You are now wanted by the Police for committing a crime. This only expires after 5 hours of active playtime. Watch your back!" It never mentions anything about it being consecutive. If you allow me your honor, I will attach the message stating this.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Is there proof of them being on for 5 hours after the crime was committed? All that was shown is proof of them being on for 7 hours via the total and 30 days playtime.

 

[Towloo]

The crime was committed over 30 days ago. Exhibit A shows the active 30-day playtime that my client had accrued. If the crime was committed over 30 days ago, and my client's 30-day playtime was 7 hours (above 5 hours), then he had been on for 5 hours after the crime was committed. The screenshot of his playtime was only taken approximately 1 hour after he got out of jail, and 6 hours is still above the 5-hour playtime limit. Furthermore, witnesses of the incident had been attempting to help him when the incident occurred, for somewhere around 5 hours.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Can you prove that the playtime was accrued after the crime was committed? That was my question, not if the Plaintiff had gotten the amount.

 

[Towloo]

I don't have definitive proof, however, we may get insight from witness testimony.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, I will be granting the Motion to Dismiss on the facts listed below.

Firstly we have the lack of proof, the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff and given no proof has been provided that the playtime was made after the wanted point was created or even when the crime was committed. Thus the Plaintiff has failed to provide proof even after being prompted regarding it.

Secondly, the matter of the fact that although yes the law does not state it needs to be consecutive this is irrelevant given the fact listed above thus removing the entire argument from the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, despite this there is still enough in Fact one to grant the Motion to Dismiss.

The Federal Court thanks all for their time.