Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your Honor,
I am debating whether or not to add staff to my witness list, but it comes down to what information is provided for this staff ticket requesting clarification. Can you give the court an update on this prior to discovery ending?
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EVIDENCE SUBMISSION
EVIDENCE SUBMISSIONPlaintiff's perjury objection overruled. No malice noted.
Plaintiff's Objection (#86) overruled. It's a claim, not a fact; Defense counsel is more than welcome to make his accusations. The veracity of those claims are what the Court will address, not the content therein. I will however note that this claim was made and the Court reserves judgement on how to proceed with that claim at this time.
Defense Motion to Amend Complaint is granted. Please stop saying Counter-Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.
Ko is Plaintiff; Jakkuwu and others are Defendants.
@ko531 Motion on Reconsideration granted. Please present the Court's order to the DOC via a ticket, then respond back with the DOC's response in a screenshot of the ticket.
Court Order
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WARRANT and ORDER
The Department of Commerce shall produce to the Court transaction logs from April 28th at 10:30pm CST to April 29th at 12:30am CST for any monetary transactions of funds that Jakkuwu sent to Incarnation__ during this time. This shall not apply to any transactions within any financial institution.
So ordered,
Judge Mug
Yes, until 10PM is fine.
Alright, that should be all she wrote for discovery. I have nothing further to add.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM
In his attempts to join my clients to this case, Plaintiff has utterly failed to state (in any amendment to his complaint) any claim of relief against them. To go point by point:
1. While he states in his complaint that his buffs were taken by my client, no where does he state that he believes my clients specifically engaged in the act of theft. While it's true theft requires the act of taking property, it also requires an intent to (a) use said property or (b) deprive the owner of it. Nowhere in this complaint or during discovery was it made clear that anyone besides Jakkuwu and Incarnation participated in the RAID with clear intent to do either of those things.
2. This claim does not mention either of my two clients.
3. Nowhere is it stated that my clients had any involvement with the news article. It can only be concluded that Jakkuwu was responsible for it given the evidence shows his willingness to admit to responsibility for the RAID.
4. (a) The evidence and complaint show only Jakkuwu had intended to steal the property. While it clear that one of my clients may have taken much of his property, he cannot said to have stolen it.
(b) Further, it is here that I will point out Plaintiff has a "duty to mitigate" per the RCCA, Part III, Section 2, Subsection (3)(a). He never requested the property back by his own admission during our private settlement negotiations. As for Sergeant, the property he took was from the public section of the farm.
5. Conversion cannot apply for a number of reasons. For Sergeant, through me as his lawyer, he took steps to attempt to return the property to Ko during settlement negotiations. However, Ko said he did not want the property back at the time. For both of my clients, Ko never clearly stated he believes they intended to permanently deprive him of his property. He only asserts that they took it.
6. Treble damages cannot apply because Conversion cannot apply per the above.
7. This section is not relevant to my clients and does not name either of them.
Okay, so...
Now, that all being said, I will again firmly state that, because the complaint was not written with my clients in mind, none of these claims delineate between which party is responsible for what.
If you examine the "prayer for relief" section, this becomes incredibly obvious for why only a dismissal for lack of claim makes sense here. None of these damages state which party is responsible for what loss (and if anything only a singular "defendant" is mentioned at the beginning). Where specific parties are mentioned, it names only Jakkuwu and Incarnation.
Is plaintiff suggesting that all parties are equally liable for damages against him? That would make sense if he claimed the parties all engaged in a conspiracy to steal his property (or that they equally stole from him, but staff-2 clearly shows that isn't the case). However, he never once suggested they were all acting in coordination beyond to say Incarnation and Jakkuwu did (a fact not denied by my clients).
Nothing in this complaint makes a specific a claim against either of my clients; there is only claims that Incarnation and Jakkuwu were entirely responsible for the damages caused to the plaintiff.
We ask this court to dismiss with prejudice both parties from the main complaint and similarly rescind the executive injunctions against my clients.
Sorry, I meant emergency injunctions.rescind the executive injunctions
Motion
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM
In his attempts to join my clients to this case, Plaintiff has utterly failed to state (in any amendment to his complaint) any claim of relief against them. To go point by point:
1. While he states in his complaint that his buffs were taken by my client, no where does he state that he believes my clients specifically engaged in the act of theft. While it's true theft requires the act of taking property, it also requires an intent to (a) use said property or (b) deprive the owner of it. Nowhere in this complaint or during discovery was it made clear that anyone besides Jakkuwu and Incarnation participated in the RAID with clear intent to do either of those things.
2. This claim does not mention either of my two clients.
3. Nowhere is it stated that my clients had any involvement with the news article. It can only be concluded that Jakkuwu was responsible for it given the evidence shows his willingness to admit to responsibility for the RAID.
4. (a) The evidence and complaint show only Jakkuwu had intended to steal the property. While it clear that one of my clients may have taken much of his property, he cannot said to have stolen it.
(b) Further, it is here that I will point out Plaintiff has a "duty to mitigate" per the RCCA, Part III, Section 2, Subsection (3)(a). He never requested the property back by his own admission during our private settlement negotiations. As for Sergeant, the property he took was from the public section of the farm.
5. Conversion cannot apply for a number of reasons. For Sergeant, through me as his lawyer, he took steps to attempt to return the property to Ko during settlement negotiations. However, Ko said he did not want the property back at the time. For both of my clients, Ko never clearly stated he believes they intended to permanently deprive him of his property. He only asserts that they took it.
6. Treble damages cannot apply because Conversion cannot apply per the above.
7. This section is not relevant to my clients and does not name either of them.
Okay, so...
Now, that all being said, I will again firmly state that, because the complaint was not written with my clients in mind, none of these claims delineate between which party is responsible for what.
If you examine the "prayer for relief" section, this becomes incredibly obvious for why only a dismissal for lack of claim makes sense here. None of these damages state which party is responsible for what loss (and if anything only a singular "defendant" is mentioned at the beginning). Where specific parties are mentioned, it names only Jakkuwu and Incarnation.
Is plaintiff suggesting that all parties are equally liable for damages against him? That would make sense if he claimed the parties all engaged in a conspiracy to steal his property (or that they equally stole from him, but staff-2 clearly shows that isn't the case). However, he never once suggested they were all acting in coordination beyond to say Incarnation and Jakkuwu did (a fact not denied by my clients).
Nothing in this complaint makes a specific a claim against either of my clients; there is only claims that Incarnation and Jakkuwu were entirely responsible for the damages caused to the plaintiff.
We ask this court to dismiss with prejudice both parties from the main complaint and similarly rescind the executive injunctions against my clients.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Your Honor,
While a few of the claims don't state these defendants when naming people as at the time of filing the complaint, I didn't know these defendant's existed. Claims of Relief 3-6 do not call out any defendant by name as they are meant to equally apply to all four. That being said they are stated in the facts and with the evidence provided in discovery, they are not innocent.
When it comes to determining what liability each party has to this complaint, that is up for the court to decide. But all the Claims and Prayers have every defendant in mind. In discovery we have Evidence of both Sergeant__Balls and Loose_Leaf_ picking up buffs at the same time as Jakkuwu. No matter what the defense alleges, they were not by far at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Loose_Leaf_ is seen in the logs picking up hundreds of items along with Jakkuwu and while Sergeant__Balls didn't do this near the scale of the other two, his contrabutions can't be thrown out. P-012, P-013 and P-014 shows that Sergeant__Balls and Jakkuwu are Co-Proprietors to the same company. A company that has the business practce of selling Buffs. Sergeant__Balls did not wonder onto my plot at random. He was there percisly at the same time as the raid. My guess is he could have been a lookout man but one thing is for sure and that is he wasnt oblivious to what was happening.
Both these defendants are very much a part of this complaint. If allowed I will motion to amend my complaint as discovery hasn't been official called by Your Honor.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
For these two defendants sake, I wish to amend my claims of relief to explicitly include them. I hope the court can see the simplicity in this mistake as I, the plaintiff, did not know these defendants existed at the time of creating the original complaint. If I did, they would have very much been included before now. Therefore I wish to amend the complaint to the following:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Motion
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
For these two defendants sake, I wish to amend my claims of relief to explicitly include them. I hope the court can see the simplicity in this mistake as I, the plaintiff, did not know these defendants existed at the time of creating the original complaint. If I did, they would have very much been included before now. Therefore I wish to amend the complaint to the following:
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
- Part VIII section 8 of the Criminal Code Act illegalizes the act of Theft. Part I Section 6.8.a.i allows for civil recovery in relation to the proceeds of a crime.
- Punitive damages as defined in Part III Section 2.b.i and 2.b.ii of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the actions of
Incarnation and Jakkuwu bothall the defendants Intended to cause harm and their conduct disadvantaged and harmed another person.- Consequential damages as defined in Part III Section 5.1.a.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act as the news article publishing the raid made me look foolish and humiliated me.
- Compensatory Damages as defined in Part III Section 2.1.a of the Redmont Civil Code Act to restore the value in Buff crops that were stolen
- Conversion as defined under Part VII Section 7.c.i of the Redmont Civil Code Act due to the stealing of my property in an attempt to permanently deprive me of it.
- Treble Damages as defined in Part III Section 8.1.a allowed explicitly by the Conversion property tort which allows all Compensatory Damages to be tripled.
- Without the help of
Incarnation__, Jakkuwuall the defendants working together, they never would have had access to my farm, had the ability to commit such a theft to this scale or publicize it which makesIncarnation__every defendant equallyalsocivilly liable for all the damageJakkuwucaused.
Your honor, as you are aware, the time for discovery has ended. With that, per Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), it is no longer allowed to make amendments to complaints.
That he attempts to do so at this juncture is further proof that he acknowledges the complaint does not state any real claim against my clients. Yes, he amended the facts of the complaint to include them, but you cannot try a case on facts alone. This is especially true when those facts are insufficient for the case at hand. Ko did not state a legal case against them for theft, and allowing him to do so now would not be appropriate.
My clients have been made to live in a state of uncertainty and dread because of this trial. They can't conduct regular business transactions, invest in property, or spend money on comfort items. This amendment does not change the amount of damages he seeks to be awarded because of the addition of these two parties; it just changes who has to pay for those damages.
