Lawsuit: Dismissed Liz37 v. MrDuckyDK [2021] DCR 29

Status
Not open for further replies.

Piluskin

Citizen
Piluskin
Piluskin
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Messages
8
Liz37 (Piluskin representing – Apex Law Firm)

Plaintiff

v.

MrDuckyDK

Defendant



COMPLAINT

The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follow: The plaintiff, Liz37, has an established farming plot in the town of Willow. The plaintiff recently decided to hire a new employee to the farm, that employee being the defendant, MrDuckyDK. Since the employee was new, the plaintiff decided not to allow access to locked chests as the employee has not earned enough trust at that time. The plaintiff recently took a break from the server to deal with personal matters (about 5-6 days), and upon return discovered that some of his chests had been emptied. Since the chests were locked and located in an established town, there simply is no way for someone to obtain items from the chests without some form of chest griefing. Upon creation of a staff ticket, it was confirmed by huney69, a server moderator, that the defendant altered the landscape around the chest by placing rails and subsequently removing them. Considering the missing items form the chest and block alteration by the defendant, it is obvious that the defendant utilized a minecart-hopper exploitation to retrieve items illegally. The evidence below was made possible and provided by Huney69.

I. PARTIES

1. Liz37 (Piluskin representing) – Plaintiff

2. MrDuckyDK – Defendant

3. Huney69 – Moderator / Witness


II. FACTS

  • The plaintiff hired the defendant to work on their land, given no permissions for chest access.
  • The chests on the property were at one point found to be empty after the plaintiff’s return to the server.
  • Evidence provided by Huney69 details block alteration and rails being placed around chests (seen below).
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

The evidence is simply overwhelming; besides the plaintiff, only the defendant had block alteration rights to the plaintiff’s land. Considering that the alterations where only rail related, it is evident that the defendant used Minecraft-hopper exploitation to steal from the chests. Thus, the defendant is guilty of 3 accounts of 4.3 – Stealing and 10.1 -Fraud. The degree of stealing, however, is unknown.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

  • As per 4.3 Stealing, the defendant will return all items to the plaintiff, incur a 15 minute jail sentence, and at least 3-day temp ban, with consideration to any past violations
  • As per 10.1 Fraud, the defendant will be fined at least $200 with consideration to any past criminal behavior.
  • Considering the lack of knowledge of distinct items stolen, and the number of violations, the defendant will pay the plaintiff $1600 and $400 in legal fees.

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 11th day of July, 2021
2021-07-10_19.08.41.png2021-07-10_19.10.28.png2021-07-10_19.12.52.png2021-07-10_19.18.45_2.png
 
district-court-png.12083


IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant @MrDuckyDK is required to appear before the court in the case of Liz37 (Piluskin representing) v. MrDuckyDK . Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​
 
Last edited:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Liz37 (Piluskin representing – Apex Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

MrDuckyDK (The Lovely Law Firm representing)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff's claim to relief is based on Law 10.1 (fraud) and Rule 4.3 (stealing).
2. However, under Section 3, Sub-Section 1 of the Jurisdiction Act, Rule 4.3 (stealing) is only "subject to enforcement by the Department of Justice".
3. Similarly, under Section 5, Sub-Section 1 of the Jurisdiction Act, Law 10.1 (fraud) is only "subject to enforcement by the Department of Education and Commerce".
4. Therefore, Rule 4.3 (stealing) and Law 10.1 (fraud) are only enforceable in a criminal case brought forward by the Justice Department on behalf of the government of Redmont.
5. Thus, this case, which is a civil lawsuit, is not legally able to enforce or make any claims relating to stealing or fraud.
6. Since this entire civil lawsuit's claims and prayers for relief revolve around Rule 4.3 (stealing) and Law 10.1 (fraud), and a civil lawsuit can't make claims and prayers relating to that specific Rule and that specific Law, this civil lawsuit has no valid claims or prayers for relief, and should thus be dismissed.

Attached to this post is a screenshot which shows that the defendant consents to being represented in this case by The Lovely Law Firm.
DATED: This 11th day of July 2021
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-07-11 at 5.21.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-07-11 at 5.21.09 PM.png
    21.6 KB · Views: 107
Your Honor, i have assumed council for the Plaintiff on this case as a Senior Partner of the Apex Law Firm. We would like to ask for a 48h extension to be added to the continuance in order to review the case and respond on the motion to dismiss.
 
Your request for an 48 hour extension is granted. You have 48 hours to present your response on the motion.
 
Your Honor, it has been more than 48 hours since you granted the extension of 48 hours. Unless I misinterpreted your extension order, I believe the plaintiff has forfeited their chance to respond to the motion to dismiss.
 
Your Honor, the plaintiff wishes to dismiss this case.
 

Verdict


Im going to be granting the defendant’s motion for dismissal because of the following reason:

1) Stealing is a rule and the court doesn’t act on rules. The court acts on laws and staff acts on rules.

2) Because of the time limit exceeded the plaintiff sees no way to proceed this case.

A note of the court: Fraud can be dealt with in a civil case under the right reasons and is not always a criminal offense. Watch case
xerxesmc (Canxx01 - Distinctive Partners at Law Representing) v. ShinHeYing , Case No. 06-2021-12.
The case is hereby dismissed
.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top