Lawsuit: Adjourned Nimq_ v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 92

[Muggy21]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Nimq_ (Represented by MZLD Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. Nimq_ (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. Hidden1915 (Agent of Defendant)
4. MysticPhunky (Agent of Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On August 22, 2025, Inspector Hidden1915 filed an eviction notice against s079, currently owned by Nimq_. The eviction notice highlighted “invalid commercial use/purpose” as the primary reason for the eviction.
2. On August 24, 2025, Nimq_ offered evidence of office furniture in several locations in the property to comply with the original alleged inadequacy.
3. On August 25, 2025, Inspector Hidden1915 stated “not sufficient progress.” The inspector included photos of two floors that included furnishment appropriate for the plot designation.
4. On August 27, 2025, Nimq_ provided evidence of a storefront. This storefront was actively maintained and is lawfully operated by Vernicia (P-002)
5. On August 29, 2025, Inspector MysticPhunky stated “there is still lack of building”
6. On August 31, 2025, Nimq_ offered evidence of office furnishings and spaces for rent.
7. On September 1st, 2025, Inspector Hidden1915 stated “still no sufficient progress” and “Additional Info: Many of your floors are empty, the floor you added this table is and "offices" are still empty. This is a picture of the floor where you added the "offices".”
8. At no point was communication offered by the Inspectors that the building continued to fail for non-compliance with the original notice.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

EXPANDING EVICTION GROUNDS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1) As held in MrFluffy v. Commonwealth and the Constitution (Const §32 (13), “unfair discrimination is the exclusion or limitation… based on arbitrary reasons”
2) In this case, the Commonwealth wishes to evict Plaintiff on the allegation that the plot was non-compliant with a commercial plot.
3) As per the Property Standards Act, skyscraper plots are effectively commercial plots that may have “ businesses, offices, shops, apartment buildings, and other commercial buildings.”
4) In the first image proffered by the Commonwealth’s inspectors (P-001), they showed a building that a reasonable person would consider empty. No evidence was offered that there was a lack of commercial activity.
5) As stated in Fact 4, Nimq_ offered evidence, that Inspectors did not counter, that a commercial activity was occurring at the plot in question.
6) Since Inspectors did not dispute the presence of a storefront on the property, the original allegation of non-compliance was effectively resolved.
7) As further stated in Facts 5–7, the Commonwealth’s inspectors then shifted their claim to allege that the building itself was deficient. According to Department policy, however, the proper basis for such a report would be “lack of progress,” not “non-compliance.”
8) This shift in the primary report constitutes an arbitrary change undertaken by the DCT. As per the 14th right (Const §32 (14), citizens enjoy the right to “liberty” of the person in accordance with”the principles of fundamental justice”
9) A citizen’s constitutional rights to liberty and fundamental justice are violated when the Commonwealth changes the grounds for eviction without just cause.
10) Accordingly, the Commonwealth’s actions amount to unfair discrimination under Const §32 (13) and an arbitrary deprivation of liberty under Const §32 (14). Once the initial allegation of non-compliance was resolved by undisputed evidence of commercial activity, the Commonwealth could not simply substitute a new basis for eviction. To allow such shifting justifications would undermine the principles of fairness, finality, and fundamental justice, leaving citizens vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement.



IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. An award of legal fees as permitted under the Legal Damages Act.
2. A monetary award of nominal damages up to the statutory maximum permitted under the Legal Damages Act.
3. Injunctive relief to prevent irrevocable harm.

Witnesses
1) Hidden1915
2) MysticPhunky

P-001

P-002

Eviction Report: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/s079-sep-5-2025.31180/



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 4th day of September, 2025.

Proof of Rep

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

The Commonwealth set an eviction date of September 5th, we request the Department of Construction and Transportation be enjoined from evicting the plot (s079) for the duration of the case.

The Commonwealth’s application of law in this controversy, if not enjoined, will irrevocably harm Plaintiff.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

The Commonwealth set an eviction date of September 5th, we request the Department of Construction and Transportation be enjoined from evicting the plot (s079) for the duration of the case.

The Commonwealth’s application of law in this controversy, if not enjoined, will irrevocably harm Plaintiff.

Granted. The Commonwealth may not evict the plot S079 for the duration of this case.

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Nimq_ v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 92.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[ameslap]

Also just so you know, I will end up handing this case over to the newly confirmed Judge @AmityBlamity upon their return from Leave.

I wanted to make sure that the EI was handled prior to the date of the eviction. Thank you.

 

[AmityBlamity]

The Commonwealth has failed to appear. I hereby find them in Contempt of Court, and instruct the DHS to fine them $5,000.

As the Commonwealth has failed to appear, we shall be proceeding with Default Judgement.

Court is in recess pending verdict.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Nimq_ v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 92

VERDICT
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

1. The DCT filed an eviction notice for "invalid commercial use/purpose".
2. Plaintiff offered evidence to rectify the issues, but DCT was not satisfied with the proffered evidence.
3. DCT inspectors attempted to change the reasoning of the eviction notice.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

1. The Commonwealth did not appear.

III. THE COURT OPINION

On Lack of Progress v. Non-Compliance

One of plaintiff's arguments is that the DCT attempted to change the basis of their report during the proceedings. The initial reason given was "invalid commercial use/purpose", under "Non-Compliance", only for the inspector to later change their reasoning to "Lack of Progress". The evidence presented in support of this was the inspector's first reply in the eviction report: "Not sufficient progress", and later "still no sufficient progress", as well as the inspector's comments regarding "there is still lack of building" and "Additional Info: Many of your floors are empty, the floor you added this table is and "offices" are still empty. This is a picture of the floor where you added the "offices"".

Upon examining the report, it is clear that when the inspector states "not sufficient progress", they are referring to the plaintiff's failure to solve the issues pertaining to the "invalid commercial use/purpose" of the property. The two terms are similar, but this Court does see the distinction here. This Court also recognizes that, in this particular scenario, "invalid commercial use/purpose" would require the plaintiff to engage in the act of building to resolve the situation.

Had the DCT attempted to change their report type in the middle of an eviction, without filing a new report, there would perhaps be an argument for a constitutional violation. However, in this scenario, the report was handled fairly and professionally. Thus, in order to judge if the report was correct, we must examine if the property indeed meets "commercial purpose".

On Commercial Purpose

Per the Evictions Policy, "commercial purpose" is defined thusly:

A commercial purpose must be substantial, ongoing, and genuinely operational. Token setups—like a few dusty chest shops selling sticks and cobblestone—do not qualify. Plots must demonstrate active trade, rentals, or services that reflect real engagement, not just a placeholder to dodge inactivity.

If your shop sells more excuses than items, it’s not a business—it’s storage.

A building will generally be considered to have a valid commercial purpose where:

• A significant proportion of the building’s usable area is actively used for commercial activity relative to the building’s overall size;
• Interior spaces are furnished or decorated in a manner consistent with their stated use;
• Multiple areas or units within the building are made available for use by others (e.g., offices, retail space, rentable areas, etc.); and
• The use of the building reflects a reasonable scale given its size (e.g., a skyscraper is not primarily occupied by storage or a handful of shops).

The Court sees no issue with this policy, nor has one been raised to this Court, and thus we shall judge the plaintiff's property based on the criteria for a valid commercial purpose.

Is a significant proportion of the building's usable area actively used for commercial activity relative to the building's overall size?

As far as the Court can tell, no. The inspector provided clear images of an almost entirely empty building, and despite progress pictures submitted by the plaintiff, a significant proportion of the building remains empty. Space devoid of offices, retail spaces, or rentable areas.

Is the interior space furnished or decorated in a manner consistent with their stated use?

In areas showcased by the plaintiff, there is some furnishing for offices and at least one storefront. However, as countered by the inspector, most of the building remains empty. The intended use of this skyscraper appears to be to provide rentable offices and retail spaces, but as previously stated, a significant portion of the building is empty.

Are multiple areas or units within the building made available for use by others (e.g. offices, retail space, rentable areas, etc...)?

Allegedly, yes. According to plaintiff in their eviction report, there are offices, an active storefront belonging to Vernicia, and other rentals available. The issue here is the "made available for use by others" portion of the requirement. One other player owns a storefront in the building, but plaintiff has provided no proof of a means for other players to rent space in the skyscraper. And again, as previously stated, there is also very little in actual area that could theoretically be used by other players.

Is the use of the building reflective to a reasonable scale given its size (e.g., a skyscraper is not primarily occupied by storage or a handful of shops)?

Thusfar, the skyscraper is primarily occupied by a single shop and two offices. This is not reflective to a reasonable scale given its size.

IV. DECISION

This Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant, and orders the following:

1. The earlier Emergency Injunction granted by Judge ameslap is hereby dissolved. The DCT is to proceed with the eviction of S079 at their earliest convenience.

The Federal Court thanks all involved. This Court is now adjourned.

Signed,
Judge AmityBlamity