Lawsuit: Adjourned Klauberg v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
nanicholls

nanicholls

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
nanicholls
nanicholls
pressassistantexecutive
Joined
Jan 18, 2023
Messages
20
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Klauberg
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
  1. Klauberg
  2. The Commonwealth of Redmont


II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff noticed he was being charged regional taxes,
2. The Plaintiff was unsure as to why as he owns only 2 plots in the city and,
3. Upon checking the “Tax Guide”, the Plaintiff confirmed his confusion as to why he was being charged.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Taxation Act of 2021

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Financial compensation of $4,500.00 for the funds lost as well as pain and suffering and,
2. An Apology and Clarification of the Tax Guide and its rules.



(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

https://imgur.com/EQ8p9Dd
- Article 1

https://imgur.com/4LFgATt
- Article 2

https://imgur.com/EVuZ3DT
- Article 3

https://imgur.com/e8BV15T
- Article 4

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 24th day of January 2023
 
Last edited:
dcr.png
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General, or anyone else legally allowed to represent the state, must appear before the court in the case of Klauberg v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 2. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​
 
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, Opposing Council

The lawsuit is filed on the basis that the Commonwealth is unlawfully collecting taxes off of people that have less than 3 plots. Although this is true, the Commonwealth itself does not control the plugin that handles taxes. This would simply be a staff matter which staff have been notified.

The matter of giving the money back, a deal could be done in which they can get the money back however they will have to contact the DLA regarding returning of the money. This is not something that has been done in the past when the plugin breaks however is something the DLA can discuss with the Prosecution.

Given the reasons the Commonwealth believes the case should be dismissed. The matter is simply something that staff should be notified regarding and the lawsuit has no premise in continuing given the staff/government separation.
 
Thank you for providing your motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide a rebuttal to the Motion to Dismiss, or state they do not wish to do so.
 
Your Honour,

As the opposing counsel has said, "the Commonwealth is unlawfully collecting taxes off of people that have less than 3 plots".

The Commonwealth is unlawfully collecting taxes, and clearly violating their own tax law. And let us be clear, this is not about shifting the blame, or who controls the plug in, at the end of the day, this is about the collection in practice not being the same as the law that our elected officials have written.

And to whom should that burden fall on. Should it be the citizen, who followed the law as written? There is no reason that a law abiding citizen, in our Commonwealth should have to plea with the government for their money back when they followed each and every law, and they have been punished by this "error".

The plaintiff opposes this motion to dismiss.
 
The motion to dismiss is overruled.

I've chosen to overrule the motion for two reasons:

1. This lawsuit is "filed on the basis that the Commonwealth is unlawfully collecting taxes off of people that have less than 3 plots."

Essentially, regardless of why the Commonwealth is collecting these taxes (e.g. an issue with a plugin), this court recognizes that the Plaintiff may still be entitled relief from the Government if it is found that the collection of these taxes is contrary to the law.

2. In [2022] FCR 77, the Hon. Judge dygyee overruled a similar Motion to Dismiss, saying, "although the government doesn't manually collect taxes, they still have been getting money from the plugin and if it is determined that the citizens are being taxed unfairly the government must give them their money back because the plugin is giving the taxed money to the government."

Given the reasoning from FCR 77, it seems clear that even if the plugin is the cause of the issue, the fact that the Government is receiving the money gives enough reason for this case to be heard.



The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
Thank you your honour.

As I said previously, This case is not about what or who caused this issue. As my opposing counsel pointed out, it's about the fact that the Government is holding money and taxing my client when according to the governments tax code my client does not meet the criteria to be taxed.

As is shown in our evidence, the client owns two plots in the city of "Reveille" and as the tax code says, the ownership of two properties should result in zero dollars of taxes paid on said properties. My client operated under the understanding of this tax code. He followed the rules, he played by the book and at the end of the day he was the one who was forced to take the grunt of the financial implications of this "mistake" while the government sits with his money.

But who will help him your honour. Regardless of the narrative that perhaps the plug in is broken, and perhaps my client should just ask for his money back, the fact of the matter here is that the government has taken something from my client in direct contradiction of the approved tax code that it must follow.

In every situation there is a middle man, your honour. But at the end of the day, the evidence will show us that the government collected and has kept until now the money unlawfully taxed from my client.

Thank you.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff for providing your Opening Statement.

The Defense now has 48 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Defense has already stated that if the Prosecution wishes they can reach a deal regarding the money however, one question comes to mind regarding the 4k the Opposing Council would like returned. How it is certain that the amount was 4k? How do we know that the Opposing Council is seeking a number not backed with facts or evidence?

An apology from the Defense should not be on the table given that the error was in the plugin itself and the tax guide was correct and that it should be overlooked. Unless the guide was out of date then an apology should be on the table however, given the guide was correct the Government was not in error for the guide.
 
Thank you to the Defense for your Opening Statement.

Both parties now have 48 hours to list any witnesses they wish to call, or state that they have none.
 
We have no witnesses your honour.
 
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Commonwealth has no witnesses to call.
 
Thank you both. We will now move on to Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to provide their Closing Statement.
 
Thank you, your honour.

It's time to again look at the facts of the matter. My client was charged taxes unlawfully, and regardless of the excuses of the plug-in breaking, at the end of the day, the government has collected funds that it should not have. The government is in possession of funds that came from someone who was not eligible to be taxed for their property, according to their own tax code.

And the opposing counsel admitted this much, saying that "The lawsuit is filed on the basis that the Commonwealth is unlawfully collecting taxes off of people that have less than 3 plots. Although this is true, the Commonwealth itself does not control the plugin that handles taxes."

So my question to this court is should the citizen have the burden of attempting to claw back their unlawfully collected tax dollars? Should the citizen have to face the immediate financial hardship that comes with taxation while they wait to hear about their money that has been unlawfully taken?

And the answer is no, they should not.

As the your honour said, In [2022] FCR 77, the Honourable Judge dygyee said, "although the government doesn't manually collect taxes, they still have been getting money from the plugin and if it is determined that the citizens are being taxed unfairly the government must give them their money back because the plugin is giving the taxed money to the government."

And my client couldn't agree more. It is time to set a precedent on this, because if it has happened before, it will most certainly happen again.

Finally, I'd like to address what my opposing counsel has previously said, when he discussed the damages we are seeking today. First of all, on the monetary value of this case.

For a citizen to come to court, to attempt to claw back their hard earned money from the government, there needs to be some sort of compensation. Not only for the individuals financial hardship as a result of this unlawful taxation, but also to cover the legal fees.

On the issue of a public apology. My client feels that citizens have been left in the dark about this issue. If a citizen is overtaxed, no one from the government is going to come apologize to them and return their money. It is a fight to get it back and my client feels this to be an important step in rebuilding trust between himself and his government.

I'd like to end your honour, where we began. At the end of the day, this case is about who is to blame for unlawful taxation. As it stands, the fault goes onto the individual. Someone like my client, who followed the books, followed the tax guide, and was unlawfully taxed despite doing everything right. But it doesn’t stop there. Under the current system, we then expect the citizen to go fight for their money back, even though it was taken against the law and an institution benefited from it.

This is simple. Do we believe that the government should be held accountable, or should they be let off the hook?

Thank you.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff for your Closing Statement.

The Defense now has 48 hours to provide their Closing Statement.
 
Your Honor, Opposing Council

I request a 24 hour extension as I have been sick and busy over the almost 48 hours. It can be posted within the 24 hour period as I am feeling better and I am not as busy.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Your Honor, Opposing Council

I request a 24 hour extension as I have been sick and busy over the almost 48 hours. It can be posted within the 24 hour period as I am feeling better and I am not as busy.
Click to expand...
Extension granted. Please have your Closing Statement posted by tomorrow at 5:07PM EST.
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Opposing Council has yet to provide any evidence arguing in favor of an unfair taking of $4,000. Given this how can we know it was $4,000 taken and now just $300? Or even $100?

The Commonwealth cannot issue an apology if the Commonwealth had no clue regarding the issue until the lawsuit. If you are left in the dark regarding something why should you have to apologize for it?

If the money were to be granted how are we not certain another lawsuit from the Opposing Council will follow regarding more money taken given the plugin is not fixed yet. Why grant money that will result in another lawsuit later?

The Commonwealth has already said that something can be negotiated if the Opposing Council would contact however, no contact was made. The Commonwealth is willing to discuss this without the Courts. Given this the Opposing Council should be charged with Perjury.
 
Your honour,

I'd like to object to the use of language from the opposing council. It is a bold claim to call your opponent in a court room a liar, it is damaging, defamatory, and is backed with no evidence.

I have clearly stated why my client is asking for damages in the tune of $4000. If the Commonwealth did not read my explanation for that, that does not make me a liar.

I would like the opposing councils statement stricken from the record.
 
nanicholls said:
Your honour,

I'd like to object to the use of language from the opposing council. It is a bold claim to call your opponent in a court room a liar, it is damaging, defamatory, and is backed with no evidence.

I have clearly stated why my client is asking for damages in the tune of $4000. If the Commonwealth did not read my explanation for that, that does not make me a liar.

I would like the opposing councils statement stricken from the record.
Click to expand...
Overruled.

Please use the proper format for Objections and clearly state an acceptable reason for objecting. You can see both the format and acceptable reasons here: Guide - Objections Guide
 
This court is now in recess until a verdict is delivered.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Klauberg v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 2

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Taxation Act only allows for a property tax if you have 3 or more plots in the city.
2. The Plaintiff only owns 2 plots in the city, and 1 plot in the wild.
3. Thus, the Plaintiff should not have had to pay taxes for their property.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. $4,000 is probably not a reasonable amount to request.
2. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff lost $4,000 to this.
3. This is the plugin’s fault, not the Government’s.
4. Granting money now won’t prevent more lawsuits in the future.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Taxation Act clearly states that you should only pay property tax if you have 3 or more properties in the city.
2. The Plaintiff only has 2 properties in the city.
3. Thus, the Plaintiff should not have been paying taxes and is entitled to the return of their money.
4. Following the Statute of Limitations, this court finds it reasonable to award relief for two months of property tax.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff, and grant a modified Prayer for Relief.

I hereby order the Department of Justice to unfine the Defendant $168 (two months’ worth of property tax on three properties).

I also encourage the Staff Team to look into what appears to be a plugin issue, and fix it.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top