Lawsuit: Adjourned Intercepticon v. DCT [2021] FCR 10

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Plaintiff:
Intercepticon (Prodigium & Partners representing)

v.

Defendant:
DCT

COMPLAINT:
My client, Intercepticon, has been improperly evicted from his plots over the last two days by DrThunder7. Three of his plots have been put up for eviction immediately and my client feels like he's being unfairly targeted. Without any notice, my client's plots (I-12 on 1/29/2021 and C-235 and C-236 on 1/30/2021) were immediately evicted from him. My Client, the well-known Speaker of the House, is not a vagrant. He is an active contributor to this server and our nation's government.

There are two remedies given to plots that are unfinished. One is to make a lack of progress report, this is so that way the player can see their error and quickly remedy their mistake and start working on their plot. The second is to make an immediate eviction report, which takes the plot away from the player immediately. Given that DrThunder7 had the option to choose a lack of progress report or immediate eviction, I would have to agree that my client was unfairly treated considering DrThunder7 choose to immediately evict all 3 plots without prior notice. Considering that my client had plans of selling C-235 and C-236 (seen in evidences 4, 5, and 6) and creating a dried kelp factory (I-12), I believe that my client is owed compensation from the DCT.

I. PARTIES
1. Intercepticon
2. DrThunder7
3. DCT

II. FACTS
1. My Client has had several plots taken from him via immediate eviction by DrThunder7, a Building Inspector of the DCT (https://democracycraft.net/threads/c-236-c-235-evict-immediately.3305/ and https://democracycraft.net/threads/i-012-evict-immediately.3307/). My client got this in lieu of getting a Lack of Progress Report.
2. My Client was given no prior warning that his plots were in danger of being immediately evicted. He only got the ingame messages from DrThunder alerting him that he had been evicted from his plots (Evidence 1 and 2).
3. My Client was arranging a sale of plots C-235 and C-236. The Sale's value was going to be $20,000 for the combined plots (Evidence 4, 5, 6).
4. The I-12 plot was appraised by a Constructor (Phatblunt) as having an estimated value of $15,000 (Evidence 3).
4. My Client is an upstanding citizen of good stature.
5. Right V of Section IV of the Constitution states that " V. All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state."


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. My client meant the state no wrong-doing and was planning to begin working on those plots.
2. In the case of C-235 and C-236, My Client was actively planning on selling the plot to someone who was more active and was going to build on the plots. By evicting him without notice, the government has deprived My Client of property and likely of capital in exchange for said property.
3. My Client is an active member of the community who does hard work on the behalf of the government and should be given more leeway in the form of a Lack of Progress report.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Either: $35,000 dollars in compensation OR downgrade the evict immediately charge to a lack of progress charge for all three plots and give my client the proper time and notification to begin working on his plots.
2. $3,500 paid to my client as restitution for legal fees.

DATED: This 31st day of January 2021 (11:10 PM EST)

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case Intercepticon v Department of Construction and Transport. Failure to appear within 24 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.​

 

[Westray]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Intercepticon (Prodigium & Partners representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Construction and Transport
Defendant

Case No: 02-2021-01-02

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfuly alledges:
1. Building Inspector DrThunder7 acted lawfully within the process and laws outlined for evictions. The qualities that an eviction must satisify for lack of progress are listed clearly in building regulations: the plot must be empty for 2 or more weeks.
2. The Plaintiff was notified through the proper building inspector protocol, with mail in-game. Additionally, the Plaintiff was more than informed that his plots were being monitored for lack of progress. Weeks before, a now-solved by owner report was posted on January 11 for non-compliance of empty plots, of c-236, c-235, c-234, i-012. Since the Plaintiff's plots were reported before, surely he should've known that they were being monitored by building inspectors, with the additional mail notice already given. This also establishes a timeline for the 2 weeks, proving the plots have exceeded the 2 week timeline.
3. The alleged arranged sale is irrelevant, as there is no exception to eviction even when you are selling such plot. Furthermore, under the Regulation Enforcement Act, it is illegal to sell a property for the purpose of evading an eviction.
4. While it may be argued that Phatblunt is qualified to appraise a building as a constructor, they are not qualified to give an appraisal of a plot- they are not a Realtor nor do they have a Real Estate License.
5. Upon eviction, the money used to purchase the plot is returned to the player. Therefore the only fees that the Plaintiff is asking for is based on personal belief of property value and legal fees.
6. The Plaintiff has brought baseless claims with no legal backing. Unfortunately the Defendant had failed to make progress on any of his properties within the specified timeframe. Regardless of the Plaintiff's position in the Government, the laws and regulations are applied equally to all. Therefore in order to maintain the rule of law, we respectfully ask the case is dismissed.

DATED: The 1st of February 2021

 

[Matt]

​

My response to the defendant's motion to dismiss is as follows:

1. Previous evictions of plots should not equate to a tacit understanding that a player's plots are under surveillance. While it may make the owner aware of the regulations, prior evictions cannot form the notice for future evictions.
2. S.3(2) of the Regulation Enforcement Act states that the Act and it's restrictions therein only apply once a report has been filed and a BI has notified the owner of the law. From the evidence at present, it seems that the negotiations occurred before any notification thus this point of law has been incorrectly applied.
3. Given the speed at which the evictions occurred following the report made, I am inclined to hear this case, allowing both sides to justify their argument.

For the reasons aforementioned, this motion has been dismissed. I will now ask the Plaintiff's representation to provide an opening statement to the matter at hand. I would kindly ask a response to be made within 24 hours in an effort to keep proceedings moving.

 

[SpriteTropical]

I would like to request that the presiding Judge grants the Defense an additional 24 hours to formulate a defense for this case, given my abrupt entrance into the Attorney General position.

 

[Matt]

The request from the defendant is granted. The new deadline for response is 03/02/2021 (UK DATE) at 16:34 GMT.

I would ask the plaintiff to hold off providing their opening statement until notified by myself that the defendant is ready to continue.

 

[Matt]

The defence has notified me of their readiness; the plaintiff may now present their opening statement. I thank the defence for proceeding quickly - it is appreciated.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you, your honor, though we've already made our Opening Statements. We wish to refrain from making any more arguments until we know the Attorney General's Opening Arguments. We cannot respond to that which we do not know.

 

[SpriteTropical]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Intercepticon (Prodigium & Partners Law representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant

Case No.: 02-2021-01-02

I - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. It is the position of the Department of Construction and Transportation that the plots were evicted in a proper manner;
2. In accordance with easily accessible department policy, the Department of Construction and Transportation strongly disagrees with the claim presented by the Plaintiff that the Department of Construction and Transportation failed to carry out reports on the plots in a proper fashion;
3. The Department of Construction and Transportation believes the goodwill and service Intercepticon has provided to the community is irrelevant to this case as we are here to determine whether or not proper protocol was followed; not whether or not Intercepticon was more deserving of receiving improper treatment.

II - DEFENSES
1. Department of Construction and Transportation policy clearly states that having an empty plot for more than two weeks. Intercepticon failed, on multiple plots, to begin construction. As such, in accordance with policy, an immediate eviction report was made. (Appendix 1.1)
2. Department of Construction and Transportation policy clearly states that lack of progress upon a plot warrants a lack of progress report. As no structure to make progress on was present on the plots, a lack of progress report could not be made. (Appendix 1.2)
3. The Department of Construction and Transportation simply cannot be expected to give compensation regarding proper evictions in this situation, as the Department of Construction and Transportation was unaware of potential business dealings going on regarding the plots in question.
4. Per policy, Building Inspectors are not required to give warnings for immediate evictions. (Appendix 1.3) However, out of courtesy DrThunder7 says that he alerted Intercepticon roughly 10-12 hours before the actual eviction occurred. (Appendix 2.1) This is shown in “Evidence 2” of the filing post made by the plaintiff.
5. There is no legal precedent that allows Constructors to appraise the price of plots; therefore the appraisal made by phatblunt is irrelevant. Furthermore, phatblunt lacks the Realtor profession and a Real Estate license.

5.1. This appraisal from phatblunt can’t even be considered correct. The “underdevelopment” of the plot managed to give it a $3,000 increase in price; yet it was not Intercepticon who built this but rather Th0re_. We can see in the original report for i-012, the plot being appraised, that clearly nothing has been built. (Appendix 3.1) It was discovered that Th0re_ built the structure that phatblunt appraised an extra $3,000 for after Intercepticon was evicted. (Appendix 3.2)​

6. Admittedly, it is important to recognize the hard work, dedication, and activity that Intercepticon has put into the server. However, this still does not put him above the law when it comes to evictions.
7. The intentions of the plaintiff is irrelevant, too, as it fails to change the fact that regulations regarding plots within the city were not met.

III. Appendices

1. The Appendices can be viewed at the following link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTMTGHgWALtvYgLy6v0GBP5XL654iGNkxRB8X9IEvgE/edit?usp=sharing

DATED: This 3rd Day of February 2021

 

[Matt]

My apologies to both the plaintiff and defendant, I got my wires crossed with the point we had reached in the trial earlier.

Both parties may now provide any additional evidence. If either party does not have any additional evidence to share, they may reply noting that they do not have anything else to share. These statements can refer to arguments presented by the respective opposition.

I would first ask the plaintiff to respond, with a subsequent response from the defendant. In the effort of keeping proceedings moving, I would kindly ask any responses to be made without unnecessary delay - preferably within 24 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

I'm clearly past due, your honor. I am okay with a judgment being made only off of opening arguments. I'll answer any other questions that you or the defendant may have.

I'd like to apologize to the Court, I was too busy today with work to write a response.

 

[Matt]

I appreciate your candour and I wholly acknowledge that life always take priority. If you can draft a response reasonably quickly I'm happy to wait for, say, a further 12 hours?

If the defence could have their response as prepared as can be, accounting for the fact that the plaintiff's response has not yet been submitted, that would be appreciated.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S OPENING ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff:
Intercepticon (Prodigium & Partners representing)

v.

Defendant:
DCT


Case no: Case No. 02-2021-01-02

I ANSWER TO DEFENDANT
There are too many arguments for me to address in numeric order. I would instead like to address issues altogether. The main focus here isn't whether or not my Client broke the rules. He clearly did. It is whether or not he deserves leniency for his actions based upon the evidence that stands and the factual matters.

The Attorney General denies that good behavior has anything to do with this case. I disagree. This is mostly because my client is a hardworking upstanding citizen who works hard as Speaker of the House to make sure that the government is working properly. In addition, he is also the current CEO of Chip Corporation. None of this justifies my client not building on the plot, but it gives insight into his intent, or lack thereof when it came to working on the plots. His mens rea (his state of mind) while committing the crime wasn't to purposely hold the property in any criminal manner, he had plans to properly utilize them but was unable to do so because he was simply too busy.

Remember our claims for relief has nothing to do with whether the government had any right to do this, clearly they do. Our claims for relief focuses on this idea of no criminal intent. We understand why the government did this, we're asking for leniency from the immediate eviction to a downgraded lack of progress report. I acknowledge the Attorney General's points regarding around I-12 and we're satisfied with the compensation given to us. However, the immediate evictions of C-235 and C-236 have cost my Client $12,180 dollars. $7,850 was given to him as compensation for the immediate eviction, however, he had plans to sell the plot for $20k to Galavance.

My client did have plans to sell the plot and was arranging the sale of the plot before the eviction report was made. If the charges are downgraded, then the court and the DCT know what my client will do. He will immediately sell the plot to Galavance and the construction of the plot will fall to him, not my client. I urge the court to consider my request, Interception is losing out on a lot of money that he would otherwise have if he was not immediately convicted. Remember, we are here appealing a criminal conviction. While I agree with the evidence given by the AG, I do want to say that it is mostly DrThunder7 saying these things. While Block86 agrees with DrThunder, I still believe that a lack of progress report can be given even if the plot is empty.

Thank you for granting an extension, your honor, we greatly appreciate it. With that, we'll end our counter-argument

DATED: This 3rd of February, 2021.

 

[SpriteTropical]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff:
Intercepticon (Prodigium & Partners representing)

v.

Defendant:
Department of Construction and Transportation


Case No.: 02-2021-01-02

I. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
In similar fashion to the plaintiff, I will not be addressing the arguments raised by Prodigium & Partners and Law in a numeric order, but respond to them with corresponding paragraphs.

The plaintiff has made moves to redefine the case. Whilst we were originally attempting to determine whether or not Intercepticon had violated laws and policies regarding the plots in question, we are here now trying to determine "leniency". The simple fact of the matter is that nobody is above the law. Intercepticon could've cured cancer or donated someone a kidney for all the law cares. That still doesn't magically change the fact that Intercepticon failed to follow proper regulations and statutes regarding plot ownership. Our own President, Westray, committed murder three times back in December. Despite his goodwill and dedication to the server, did the law automatically give him leniency? Did he get a pass for breaking the law, despite his goodwill? No. He didn't (see attached). He didn't receive leniency or a pass because nobody is above the law. It is beyond asinine to even begin to suggest anything other than that.

Furthermore, intent simply doesn't matter either. If someone commits a crime even if they had good intentions or no intentions to commit a crime, do they still receive a punishment? Absolutely. If someone murders someone in Redmont with joking intentions, are they still convicted of a crime? Yes. If someone gives exam answers with intentions to be genuinely helpful, are they still breaking the law? Yes. If someone unknowingly trespasses on property, are they still breaking the law? Yes. If someone possesses a WMD without realizing its illegal, are they still breaking the law? Yes. So why should someone who has clearly broken the law, as in this court case, receive a pass?

The claims of relief are largely poorly thrown together as well. The claim of relief is largely based around the fact that Intercepticon is somehow deserving of the claims of relief, solely based on the goodwill that he's offered the server. As I've touched on previously, this goodwill doesn't change the fact that nobody is above the law. Allowing this precedent to be set would spell disaster and would be a gigantic stain on our legal system. Moreover, actually following through on the claim of relief the plaintiff mainly talked about in his most previous response would be a logistical nightmare given the fact that the plots in questions have new owners (see attached). Why would it be fair to these new owners for their legally obtained property to be seized due to some incessant need for "leniency", especially leniency that isn't deserved due to basic legal principles?

As the plaintiff has raised concerns with DrThunder7 being the only person saying these things, I have provided statements from Secretary Block86 and Deputy Secretary and longest standing Building Inspector Mhadser101. They are attached.


DATED: This 3rd of February 2021.

 

[Matt]

Both parties may now provide their closing statements. These statements can refer to arguments presented by the respective opposition.

I would first ask the plaintiff to respond, with a subsequent response from the defendant. In the effort of keeping proceedings moving, I would kindly ask any responses to be made without unnecessary delay - preferably within 24 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, The Attorney General and I would like to conclude without closing arguments.

Evidence:

 

[Matt]

Fantastic, thank you to both parties - I'll provide my verdict shortly.

 

[Matt]

Verdict

I. Court’s Opinion

As has been established by both parties, the fact there has been a breach of the regulations is undisputed. As of present, the ‘mental element’ of offences has not been defined within DC, but I appreciate both parties providing their analysis on this issue. I am not persuaded by the argument that the plaintiff did not intend to own the empty plot for more than two weeks and therefore he should be found not guilty; nor am I persuaded by the argument that intent is irrelevant in every instance - mens rea is a key part of both criminal and civil law, and something which I believe safeguards justice from being compromised. That said, I would find the offence in question, an empty plot, being an offence of strict liability - thereby requiring no intention, the factual element of owning an empty plot for two weeks or longer is sufficient for the offence to have been committed. I would not agree that the offence in question is one of a criminal nature - I find that such an administrative wrong is more suited to be defined within a civil frame, and indeed the plaintiff’s original filing was for a “Civil Action”.

The question of warning is then to be discussed. The defence has provided evidence that it is not ‘BI protocol’ to warn players of any future reports against them. While I believe this may be the case, this cannot be confirmed as the BI protocol forum area is not accessible to the public nor this court. It is questionable to me that a department feels it is sufficient to operate policies with such a cloak and dagger approach. These policies and regulations affect the public; they should be accessible to the public.

I accept that the offence of having an empty plot for 2+ weeks is common knowledge and therefore the plaintiff was aware of such an offence. However, the fact that there is no notice whatsoever concerns me. All other report types, except Vault Request Reports, require at least 7 days notice. There has been no argument presented by the defence that justifies the lack of notice for an Eviction Report, except referencing inaccessible protocols.

It is beyond the court’s power to change the report types to that of a Lack of Progress Report to therefore entitle the plaintiff to continue ownership of these plots. As has been presented by the defence, these plots have new owners which are, in the court’s eyes, bona fide purchasers; equity thereby preventing any claim from taking the land away from these new owners. I also accept the evidence presented by the defence that allowing BI’s to pick and choose between Lack of Progress and Eviction Reports could allow for questionable actions on the part of BI’s, not that this court believes any BI would participate in said questionable behaviour.

However, the lack of notice prior to eviction is distasteful at the least; had there been even 24 hours notice, such a claim would likely have never arisen at court. Given plots are so valuable and a significant investment for players, it is necessary for some time to elapse to enable citizens to rectify the issue prior to being evicted. It is unconfirmable on the evidence presented whether a message was indeed sent 10-12 hours prior to eviction, but I would agree with the defence that this did likely happen. However, 10-12 hours does not constitute a reasonable period of notice, given players are based in multiple timezones.

II. Court’s Verdict

I find in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of having a lack of reasonable notice from the point of the report being filed to the eviction being actioned. However, as pointed out by both parties, the rule of law applies to all and I will not accept a plea of leniency due to good character or lack of intent; I find the offence committed is one of strict liability and the plaintiff did breach the requisite standard to avoid eviction.
As such, I order:

• $3000 to be paid to the plaintiff due to lack of notice.
• $1000 to be paid to the plaintiff to cover legal fees.
• The DCT to make public on the forums all non-sensitive BI protocols as soon as is reasonably practicable, given that such a change may require staff to edit permissions. Reasonable justifications must be given if any protocols are withheld from the public.
• The DCT to enforce a period of 24 hours notice prior to an Eviction Report being actioned.