Lawsuit: Adjourned FishyFish879 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 100

Status
Not open for further replies.

RandomIntruder

Citizen
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
RandomIntruder
RandomIntruder
economist
Joined
Oct 3, 2022
Messages
118
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


FishyFish879
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Department of Construction and Transportation unrightfully evicted the Plaintiff from their plot despite the building previously passing inspections.

I. PARTIES
1. FishyFish879
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. The Department of Construction and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. An eviction report was made against plot c120 on Sep. 17th, 2022.

2. The building was adjusted and found to be within guidelines of the DCT on Oct. 2nd, 2022, leaving the eviction notice marked as “Solved By Owner,” preventing eviction.

3. A second eviction notice was made Nov. 25th, 2022.

4. No changes had been made to the building since it was approved by the DCT in the first eviction.

5. The Plaintiff exercised their right to appeal this eviction notice as stated in the report by commenting on the thread.

6. The DCT did not respond to the appeal before the plot was evicted.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The plot had previously been approved by the DCT but was reported again despite having no changes made to it since the approval.

2. The rights of the Plaintiff were not honored as their Appeal was left unresponded to until the eviction.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The return of plot c120 to the Plaintiff

2. The building that was previously on c120 to be returned to the plot.

V. EVIDENCE

Eviction report 1:https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c120-01oct22.14427/#post-54063

Eviction report 2:https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c120-dec-9-2022.15259/#post-57449


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 22nd day of December 2022
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-12-18 at 9.35.41 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-12-18 at 9.35.41 PM.png
    43.8 KB · Views: 39
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 FishyFish879 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 100. 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.​
 
Your honor it has been more than 48 hours.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

FishyFish879 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 100

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. An eviction report was filed against the Plaintiff's building.
2. The Plaintiff tried to appeal and fix the issue.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. A representative of the Commonwealth failed to appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. There is sufficient evidence of everything that the Plaintiff claims.
2. Furthermore the Plaintiff did try to appeal the decision and the Commonwealth didn't acknowledge the fact that the building was a specific type of style.
3.The Commonwealth failed to appear before the court.
4. Sometimes if the plot or items that are supposed to be returned to the Plaintiff belong to someone else, the Plaintiff is entitled to the value of what the plot or items were worth. However in this case, the DCGovernment owns the plot.
5. Also after looking at the image of the second plot, it doesn't appear to be an eyesore.


IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff in a default judgement, and order the DOJ to unfine them $100.
2. Furthermore, I order the DCT to return the plot to the Plaintiff with the original build on it. If they can't return the plot with the build on it, they must return the plot and an additional $2,500.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top