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.
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.
Motion to Amend Complaint #95 is granted.
Please read the Regulations of the Federal Court.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, it's inappropriate to grant this request. Discovery ended as you yourself said during the sidebar. The plaintiff lost his chance to amend the complaint when it closed.
That he choose to enjoin my clients to this case without claiming relief against them is his choice. However, I can't litigate a lawsuit I was not allowed to answer in full.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT
Your Honour,
In Claim 7, the Plaintiff alleges that without the help of Incarnation__, Jakkuwu would never have had access to the farm. However, discovery has shown that this is factually untrue. Staff-1 and Staff-2 show that Jakkuwu was able to access the coordinates below the glowstone well before the glowstone was ever broken. Incarnation__ has done nothing to help Jakkuwu access any buffs.
Incarnation__ has committed no wrongdoing in this case, and there is nowhere near enough evidence to link the damages the Plaintiff is seeking with Defendant Incarnation__. Without more evidence to support the Plaintiff's theory that the broken Glowstone gave Jakkuwu access to his "farm", the charges brought forth against Defendant Incarnation__ should be clearly dismissed.
Your honor, I can't offer opening statements until this gets decided. I can go into more into detail to support this motion if you like.Motion
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, it's inappropriate to grant this request. Discovery ended as you yourself said during the sidebar. The plaintiff lost his chance to amend the complaint when it closed.
That he choose to enjoin my clients to this case without claiming relief against them is his choice. However, I can't litigate a lawsuit I was not allowed to answer in full.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT
Your Honor,
The case that lays before you has everything you could wish when it comes to having evidence of wrong doing. Every defendant played a role with the theft that occured on my property. Theft that was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at the time it took place. Using the evidence provide I am going to paint a vivid picture to illustrate what took place.
On the night of April 28th, Jakkuwu had one goal in mind which was to break into my plot and steal my buffs. After realizing that he could not just strut in, he had to resort to breaking in. At the time only two people were added to that plot. MsGeorgia and Incarnation. Jakkuwu's first attempt was to MsGeorgia which failed as seen by P-009 and P-010. After this MsGeorgia alerted me to this attempt of theft to which I checked and found my farm still intact. This would be the last time I would see the farm intact as seen by P-006.
After the breach of my property and the theft, Jakkuwu decides to flaunt his winnings by discussing it in #politics and even reporting the haul to a news company. What we have found throughout the discovery process is that everything Jakkuwu said ended up being true.
First as seen through P-001, Jakkuwu claims that Incarnation is the one to have let him in. When discussing the broken blocks seen in P-002 Jakkuwu admits that the block broken to gain entrance was glowstone. Both were proven true as seen by Staff-1 where we can see logs of Incarnation breaking a piece of glowstone at that time. The broken block can be seen in P-007
Jakkuwu also eluded to paying Incarnation to break in to my plot as seen in P-008. This also was proven true when a transaction from Jakkuwu to Incarntion was discovered totally $50,000 in P-016 and P-017. All this comes out to Incarnation being paid to break Jakkuwu into my property to steal my buffs.
The defense rest on the timing of the logs to prove that this didnt happen. After questioning DrThunder and Staff about these logs, the question of timing should be put to rest. Even without this testimony, on a balance of probability should lead you to the same conclusion of Incarnation breaking Jakkuwu in. There is just too much evidence.
Jakkuwu was not alone however. As seen in Staff-2 we see both Loose_Leaf and Sergeant__Balls were picking up my buff plants. Both these defendants helped steal hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of buffs. They were not there just to watch but to help steal. Loose_Leaf is clearly seen stealing the plants about 50/50 with Jakkuwu. While Sergeant__Balls isn't in there nearly as much, he clearly wasn't at the wrong place at the wrong time either. The working theory for his participation is he was look out. This makes sense. Unless caught in the act, the Lookout man would never leave any evidence. It is lucky that he did break some buffs otherwise a key part of this massive operation would have been missed.
All these defendants not only played part in the breaking into my plot and stealing my buffs. But they did so with intent and design to profit. As seen by P-012, P-013 and P-014 two of the defendants work for HesienbergCo which sells mostly Buffs. This meets the Coversion tort definition of having the intent to perminantly deprive me of the property. So along with all 4 defandents being responsible for the value of the buffs stolen, they also owe Treble damages which triples the Compensatory damages.
When it comes to the valuation of the buffs as listed in my complaint it is very simple. This theft happened only days after Buffs were added to the server. And due to the severe amount stolen which was over 15,000 plants in total, even if there were shops already up this early into the buffs addition, None of them would have nearly the amount to make me whole which would force me to go to the buff dealer whose prices are fixed and stock is infinite. The defense provides evidences of a shop in D-L03, yet not only was this taken weeks after the addition of Buffs which fails to reflect the value at the time of the theft, but the shop is barely in stock.
COUNTERCLAIMS
To address the counter claims against me, they are ridiculous to say the least. The first is for the abuse of emergency Injunctions against a defendant. This type of claim in the court guides is in reference to failing to filing the lawsuit within 12 hours of the emergency Injunction which doesn't make sense for this case. Additionally to hold me accountable for the court's decision to grant the injunctions would be wild. The court is responsible for reviewing the injunction and seeing if they are proper to avoid harm which in this case the court did find.
Every other claim is in relation to this being a friviolous case (Punitive, Legal fees, etc...) against one of the defendants. As I illustrated, this defendant, Sergeant__Balls, did provide value and was not there for no reason. They hold some responsiblity for this breach and theft. And if they hold any responsiblity then this case isnt frivilous against them. A frivilous case is a case that holds no value which is not the case for the suit against Sergeant__Balls.
Motion
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, it's inappropriate to grant this request. Discovery ended as you yourself said during the sidebar. The plaintiff lost his chance to amend the complaint when it closed.
That he choose to enjoin my clients to this case without claiming relief against them is his choice. However, I can't litigate a lawsuit I was not allowed to answer in full.
