Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 16

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dartanboy

Citizen
President of the Senate
Senator
Homeland Security Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
presidentofthesenate
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,116
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Department of Construction and Transport evicted me from plot unlawfully.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman
2. Department of Construction and Transport

II. FACTS
1. On December 14, 2022, a Building Inspector filed an Eviction Report against my property, c284. The reason for the Eviction Report was "eyesore."
2. On December 19, 2022, I informed the DCT that the building was still in-progress.
3. On December 19, 2022, I informed the DCT that I was challenging the eviction - a process which the DCT informed me I was able to do by commenting on the eviction report.
4. On December 25, 2022, the DCT Secretary asked if I needed more time to get the plot up to regulation. That same day, I responded "Yes please."
5. On December 27, 2022, I decided my building was beyond saving, and informed the DCT of my intentions to tear down the building and make a new one.
6. On January 14, 2023, I was evicted from c284 -- despite having made some progress on tearing down the building (Most recently on January 6, 2023, if I recall correctly).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. My appeal/challenge of the eviction was essentially ignored.
2. No status update was given regarding the status of my appeal/challenge, and then I was suddenly evicted.
3. "Eyesore" is not a valid reason to evict someone (anymore?), according to the Property Standards Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The return of c284 and all blocks/items in it, including several shulker boxes, multiple firearms, and thousands of blocks of concrete. (I am estimating the monetary value at $15,000 -- if it is not possible to return the items and blocks, I request this amount of money).
2. $1000 in legal fees, for the time I've spent (and will be spending) on this lawsuit.

EVIDENCE
1. Exhibit A [Eviction Report]: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c284-dec-28-2022.15456/
2. Exhibit B [Property Standards Act]: Act of Congress - Property Standards Act

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 15th day of January 2023
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 16. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion To Dismiss

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Motion to Dismiss

Your honour, This lawsuit is not filed on the basis of any law. So this lawsuit is frivolous. Also, they didn’t provide enough evidence for their claims for relief. For the following reasons, this lawsuit must be dismissed.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. My appeal/challenge of the eviction was essentially ignored.

- The department didn't ignore the plaintiff. The plaintiff didn’t open a Department of Construction and Transport support ticket. If they had opened it, this would be right but they didn't. As written in the regulation, you have to open a Department of Construction and Transport ticket to request an exemption or extension. But the plaintiff didn’t open a ticket to get support. After the eviction report is filled, they had 14 days to fix their building before it gets evicted and the plaintiff had almost 30 days to fix the building but they failed to fix their building. You can read plot regulations to learn more about extension and exemption requests.


2. No status update was given regarding the status of my appeal/challenge, and then I was suddenly evicted.

- Department of Construction and Transport is not tasked with updating the plaintiff as the plaintiff didn’t open a support ticket. If the plaintiff were opened a support ticket, the department would have helped the plaintiff.


3. "Eyesore" is not a valid reason to evict someone (anymore?), according to the Property Standards Act.

- Eyesore is a valid reason to file an eviction report. You can read the plot regulations to see the valid reasons for the evictions.

Also, the Department of Construction and Transport is tasked with filing eviction reports. Not doing the evictions. So the commonwealth suggests the plaintiff contact the staff to get further support.

For these reasons, this lawsuit must be dismissed.

EVIDENCE
Plot Regulations Link

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 January 2023
 
May I have the opportunity to respond to the Motion to Dismiss?
 
You may have 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

1. My appeal/challenge was essentially ignored. The Defense is straight-up lying saying they did not.

The Defense suggests that in order to challenge the eviction, I must open a DCT ticket. This is not true. First of all, the Defense is conflating a “challenge” or “appeal” with “exemption” and/or “extension.”

The Plot Regulations never mention the word “challenge” or “appeal,” meaning what was told to me by the Government in the Eviction Report is the policy regarding “challenges” and “appeals.” I was told “You have the right to challenge this eviction by commenting below.” If this is not true, then the Government has defrauded me and a new lawsuit will follow shortly.

Additionally, even if the issue at hand was an exemption or extension, the Plot Regulations say that they “can be requested in a DCT ticket.” They do not say they can only be requested in a DCT ticket.

2. The Defense suggests that because I didn’t open a DCT ticket, it is not the DCT’s fault that my appeal/challenge’s status was not updated. Your honor, I once again point to the policy given to me: “You have the right to challenge this eviction by commenting below.” This does not require a DCT ticket. To suggest that it does is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

3. “Eyesore” is in the Plot Regulations, but the Plot Regulations cannot override the Property Standards Act. The Property Standards Act is very clear: “(1) The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.”

“Eyesore” is not displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node (or anywhere on the rules and laws page). It stands to reason, therefore, that “Eyesore” is not a valid reason for eviction, especially since no reasonable person (like myself) would reasonably be aware of such a regulation, given the understanding that the law requires it would be posted under the Rules and Laws.

4. The Defense erroneously claims “Also, the Department of Construction and Transport is tasked with filing eviction reports. Not doing the evictions. So the commonwealth suggests the plaintiff contact the staff to get further support.”

This hardly warrants a response. The actual action of eviction is technically done by staff, but they do so due to an Eviction Report from the DCT. This is 100% the DCT’s/Government’s fault – not the staff team. Do not try to make this a staff issue. This is a Government problem.

5. The Defense also claims I have insufficient evidence. This is a) false and b) not a valid reason to dismiss a case.
 
I will be denying the motion the dismiss, as the 2 main claims for dismissal are a lack of evidence, and that this case was not filed on the basis of any law. The lack of evidence is not a reason for a motion to dismiss, and the second claim isn't true as the Plaintiff claims he was evicted unfairly, and that he tried to appeal/challenge the eviction but the DCT wouldn't let him.

We will now move on to opening statements, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Good day, your honor, opposing counsel.

I want to reiterate what happened here. An eviction report was filed against my property, with the reason: “Eyesore.” I was informed I was allowed to challenge it. I challenged it. I was then evicted, with no update on whether my challenge was accepted, denied, or otherwise noticed. This is clear in Exhibit A, so I’m not sure what the supposed “lack of evidence” is that the Defense has suggested. To the Defense: Please explain this, I am more than happy to produce any evidence I am able to if the court allows.

II. ARGUMENTS
I want to be very clear: there are TWO reasons I believe I deserve relief here.

1. (Claims for Relief 1 & 2 are pretty much together as one reason) My appeal/challenge was ignored and I was still evicted despite an apparently-pending appeal/challenge. This is against the DCT policy I was informed of in the Eviction Report, and thus illegal.

2. (Claim for Relief 3) “Eyesore” is not a valid reason to evict someone according to the Property Standards Act. The law states plainly, “(1) The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.

“Eyesore” is not displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node (or anywhere on the rules and laws page). It stands to reason, therefore, that “Eyesore” is not a valid reason for eviction, especially since no reasonable person (like myself) would reasonably be aware of such a regulation, given the understanding that the law requires it would be posted under the Rules and Laws page.

That is all. Thank you, your honor.
 
The Defendant has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement


Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Opening Statement

Your honour, the law is simple. The Department of Construction and Transportation can establish new regulations.
Property Standards Act.
4 - Jurisdiction
(1) The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law and to evict properties in accordance with these laws and regulations. These regulations will be listed under Department policy and will be displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.

The Department of Construction and Transportation has listed Eyesore under department policy. Also, The Property Standards Act is displayed on the relevant rules and laws page node.
6.11 - Completed Buildings
A finished plot is defined as a plot with a completed building which is compliant with the building regulations and has a function, or a finished interior.

And according to the Property Standards Act. the regulations will be stated under the department policy. So eyesore is a valid reason for eviction reports and there isn’t something illegal.

Plaintiff states that the Department of Construction and Transportation ignored them. But this is not even possible because they didn’t even open a support ticket. As written in the department policy, if you want to request an extension, then you must open a support ticket.
Also, they state that the Department of Construction and Transportation illegally evicted them from their plot. But the Department of Construction and Transportation can not evict people from their plots. Department of Construction and Transportation can only do eviction reports.

So there isn’t anything illegal done by the Commonwealth.
 
Thank you to both parties for your opening statements. Both parties now have 48 hours to present their list of witnesses or state that they have none.
 
The commonwealth would like to call the staff team as witnesses.
 
I have no witnesses.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

The Staff Team is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 16 as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin question both witnesses. The Defendant will then have a chance to cross-examine both witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.​
 
The Defense has 48 hours to post all of their questions for the staff team. Once the defense posts their questions, the witness will have 48 hours to answer. After that, the Plaintiff will have the opportunity to cross examine the witness.
 
Question 1
Who is responsible for filing eviction reports?

Question 2
Who is responsible from doing evictions?
 
Question 1
Who is responsible for filing eviction reports?
Staff have no involvement in filing evictions or determining what is evicted. This is a question of law that the staff team won't advise on.

Question 2
Who is responsible from doing evictions?
The Staff team action any evictions on their eviction date.
 
The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to cross-examine the witness, or state that they have no questions.
 
I have no questions, your honor.
 
We will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION TO CLOSING STATEMENT
Good afternoon, your honor.

In this case, the Defense has hardly provided any defense at all, trying to claim time and time again that this is, in-fact, a staff issue. This is an absurd argument. If the mere involvement of staff in a Government action made it a staff issue, there are dozens of issues that could arise. Here is one example:

The Department of State counts the votes in elections, but Staff Members actually set the roles of Government officials. If the Department of State lied about who won an election and someone became President even if they didn't actually win the election, this isn't a reason to sue the Commonwealth, since all the DoS did was count the votes. You should talk to the Staff Team about this issue.

This is meant to emphasize that even though technically the Staff Members are the ones doing the physical actions, it is truly a Government issue that needs to be solved -- not a staff one.

II. CLOSING ARGUMENTS
1. As shown above, ruling in favor of the Defendant and calling this a staff issue would create a dangerous precedent allowing the Department of State to be completely in control of who gets to be in an elected office. This is dangerous to our democracy.

2. Your honor, I wish to reiterate that "Eyesore" is not found anywhere on the Rules and Laws page, and in order to be considered a valid reason for eviction, it must be on that page, according to the Property Standards Act. I implore you to recognize this and find that this eviction was illegal, as a law-abiding citizen like myself would look at the Rules and Laws Page and find that "Eyesore" is not on the page, and reasonably come to the conclusion that having an "Eyesore" build is perfectly legal.

3. My appeal/challenge was essentially ignored, despite it clearly existing in the eviction report thread [See Exhibit A]

4. "Eyesore" is not a well-defined term, and it seems absurd that a single member of the DCT can arbitrarily decide what qualifies as an "Eyesore" and not give victims the opportunity to appeal (although I theoretically had the opportunity to appeal, the appeal was essentially ignored.)

Contrary to the Defense's claims, opening a ticket is not a requirement for an appeal, as I was informed by the DCT that all I had to do was reply to the thread [See Exhibit A].

III. CONCLUSION
Thank you your honor, opposing counsel, for your time. I hope that this court upholds the law and allows me to have my property back.

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 8th day of February 2023
 
The defense now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
The defense has failed to post their closing statement within the allotted time. I hereby charge Claxx77 with 1 count of contempt of court. I order the DOJ to fine/jail her appropriately.

A verdict will be posted soon.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 16

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The DCT filed an eviction report because they claimed Dartanman's building was an eyesore.
2. 5 days later, Dartanman informed the DCT that the building was still in progress, and that he was challenging the eviction.
3. After informing the DCT that he needed more time, he decided to tear down the building altogether.
4. Before he was able to tear down the building completely, he was evicted from his plot.
5. The Plaintiff also claims that an "eyesore" is not a reason to evict someone, and furthermore, it's not a well defined term.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Eyesore is a valid reason to evict someone.
2. The Plaintiff never challenged the eviction as he never opened up a ticket with the DCT, but rather commented on the eviction report which is not how you are supposed to appeal.
3. Lastly, the DCT just files the reports, they don't actually evict people. It's the staff team that evicts people.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. According to the Property Standards Act, the DCT is allowed to enforce their own building regulation so long as these regulations are listed.
2. According to the DCT plot regulations thread on forums, an eyesore is a valid reason to file an eviction report, and the property owner has 14 days from when the report was filed to fix their issue.
3. Despite the Plaintiff claiming that "eyesore" was a vague and a not-well defined term, the DCT defines it and provides a list of things that would consider the building to be an eyesore.
4. Despite only needing to have 1 of these listed items to be considered an eyesore, the Plaintiff's building had 2. Those being "Looks like a Box," as well as "Limited or no windows."
5. Considering the Plaintiff's building was a box with no visible windows, it is fair to say that the building was an eyesore.
6. 11 days after the eviction report, just 3 days before the initial eviction date, the Plaintiff was asked if he needed more time, to which he replied "Yes please."
7. 20 days after that (31 days since the initial report), the Plaintiff had still not provided any photographic update, which was requested by the DCT, so he was evicted.

IV. DECISION
1. Despite having 31 days, which is more than double the typically allotted time to fix an eyesore, the Plaintiff still failed to do so. Because of this, this court finds that the eviction was a valid eviction.
2. For the reason stated above, I hereby rule in favor of the Defendant. This court is now adjourned.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top