Lawsuit: Dismissed Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al. [2025] DCR 71

[Plura72]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Beach Party et al.
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I bought a plot from katto, then since it was empty and with no propose, i decided to hand it over to redmont beach party with the promise of it being used as a party headquarters, wherein it has been empty and acording to the perviously made deal i am hereby entitled to the plot back

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. Plura72
2. Redmont Beach Party et al.

II. FACTS
1. I bought av-c035 from katto
2. It remained empty until i made a deal with the Redmont Beach Party to get the plot used as headquarters
3. the deal stated that IF it remained unused i had the rights to the plot back
4. the RBP has not made an effort to return the plot that has remained empty


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach Of Contract

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Av-c035 to be returned to Plura72
2. $50,000 in damages
3. 30% in legal fees

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

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 26th day of june 2025

witnesses:

KattoDE
Bezergezzer

Motion

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUCTION

the plaintiff moves to freeze plot av-c035 for the remainder of this case

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Bezzergeezer @Omegabiebel @RedmontBeachParty is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al.

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

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.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Emergency Injunction by Plura72

Denied.

Injunctions are meant to be prevent harm and maintain the status quo (see Judicial Standards Act). The Court takes judicial notice of public records that the property is currently owned by AnimeInc, and this citizen's role in this controversy is unknown.

The Court will gladly reconsider its decision, but requires some showing on the part of the Movant.

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@Bezzergeezer @Omegabiebel @RedmontBeachParty is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Plura72 v. The Redmont Beach Party et al.

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

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.

Your Honor,

I am present as retained counsel for Bezzergeezer.

Spoiler: Evidence of Retainer

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

I am present as retained counsel for Bezzergeezer.

Spoiler: Evidence of Retainer

View attachment 63044

Received counselor,

You shall have 72 hours to respond to the Complaint.

For the Court's sanity, please title your submissions with your client's name (in case there are other respondents).

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

On Behalf of Bezzergeezer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant Bezzergeezer moves to involuntarily dismiss the case in toto and respectfully alleges the following:

I. Lack of Claim​

The Complaint the Plaintiff has provided contains zero evidence to support the civil charge, whatsoever. Under Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use), "All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission". As such, the Plaintiff has provided no evidentiary material to support any allegation made in the Complaint.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "[a] Motion to Dismiss may be filed... against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge" (emphasis mine). As the Plaintiff has presented a complaint with not so much as a single exhibit for evidence, the Complaint clearly has insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.

II. On Legal Fees​

Legal Damages Act 9(2)(c) et seq. states:

In cases that do not reach a verdict, legal fees may be awarded at the discretion of the presiding judicial officer, but shall not exceed 30% of the total case value if awarded.
(i) In civil cases, the value of a case shall be assessed as either the award actually granted if the plaintiff prevails, or the award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails.

The total case value presented by the Plaintiff would be the value of Av-c035, plus $50,000, plus an additional 30% in legal fees. This places the total case value at no less than $66,666.66 if av-c035 were worth $0.

In order to deter frivolous filings without any shreds of evidence, the Defendant asks for an award of legal fees in the maximum amount. This would be 30% of $66,666.66, which when rounded to the nearest cent is a request for $20,000 in legal fees in the event dismissal is granted.

 

[Imza]

Your Honour,
As a Councillor within the Town of Aventura and the author of the Aventuran Eviction Regulations, I would like to file an amicus curiae brief regarding the current ownership of AV-C035 and why it is currently owned by AnimeInc.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,
As a Councillor within the Town of Aventura and the author of the Aventuran Eviction Regulations, I would like to file an amicus curiae brief regarding the current ownership of AV-C035 and why it is currently owned by AnimeInc.

Proceed.

 

[Plura72]

Your Honor,

I am present as retained counsel for Bezzergeezer.

Spoiler: Evidence of Retainer

View attachment 63044

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

MZLD is counsel for bezzergeezer not for the Redmont Beach party. i hereby request that this court strikes all messages sent by the uncalled counsel and wait until the proper counsel for the RBP arrives.

Motion

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion for Emergency Injunction by Plura72

Denied.

Injunctions are meant to be prevent harm and maintain the status quo (see Judicial Standards Act). The Court takes judicial notice of public records that the property is currently owned by AnimeInc, and this citizen's role in this controversy is unknown.

The Court will gladly reconsider its decision, but requires some showing on the part of the Movant.

Your honor, I suppose the property is under eviction from the aventura`s goverenment legislations. if this eviction goes through it will result in harm to the plaintiff by not allowing them to their property back.

 

[Imza]

Proceed.

Your Honour,
To confirm, how long do I have to submit the amicus brief?

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,
To confirm, how long do I have to submit the amicus brief?

48 hours, thanks

 

[Matthew100x]

I would like to submit an amicus brief to comment on the nature of the contract.

 

[Muggy21]

I would like to submit an amicus brief to comment on the nature of the contract.

The Court would welcome this brief, but fears it might be premature at this time.

Nonetheless, you shall have 48 hours.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

MZLD is counsel for bezzergeezer not for the Redmont Beach party. i hereby request that this court strikes all messages sent by the uncalled counsel and wait until the proper counsel for the RBP arrives.

Denied. The Court called Bezzer and his counselor responded.

To the Court's knowledge Bezzer is the registrant of the RBP, thus is that party's agent. If you're aware of the proper party for service, please advise the Court.

 

[Matthew100x]

Understood. I should have said nature of the claim, which is my mistake.

The Nature of the Claim:

The nature of the claim is of essence a question of schooling. When—in a simpler time and place in a land long forgone—a person devises their land on condition, that condition comes with it a method of principal claw back. It would other words be called a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter. Simply, the condition is material in the contract and allows for land to be returned to the Plaintiff for failure to follow the condition.

Fee simple determinable has no basis in our property law. We do not have any posts using the words "fee simple" prior to this amicus brief. Indeed, a fee is a antiqued concept of feudalism, preserved in the modern system only because the devisement of land follows the system of old. There has not been a greater need to replace the fee. Yet, Redmont had no history of feudalism and therefore does not follow the system of "fees." We instead follow the system of "plots."

That is not to say that a fee simple determinable is impossible, but, instead that the concept should be seen as a conditional plot contract. Land was potentially given on condition that it would be used, this would be enough to potentially create an express or implied term (see 5 - Terms, Act of Congress - Contracts Act). If these are the terms conveyed, then it would necessarily be a breach of contract to follow those terms. (see 7(1) - Breach of Contract, Act of Congress - Contracts Act). Included in our remedies, is equitable relief, which could include the land being returned to the contractor. (see 7(1)(a) - Breach of Contract, Act of Congress - Contracts Act). Additionally, the contractor may be able to get the land returned to them on a theory that failure to follow the condition created a material breach that terminates the contract, thus ending the grant of the plot by contract. (see 12 - Termination of Contract, https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/; Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6 (returning plaintiff's drill to them because the contract is no longer in force); Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43 (returning plaintiff's premium for the call because the contract was declared null and void)).

All of this is long winded to say that the claim, on it's face, makes more sense then it initially appears. And this Court should take all factors into consideration before coming to any decision.​

 

[Plura72]

Objection

OBJECTION RELEVANCE

This brief seems to have been written with an AI evidenced by "Understood. I should have said nature of the claim, which is my mistake." Plaintiff moves to strike this brief.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

OBJECTION RELEVANCE

This brief seems to have been written with an AI evidenced by "Understood. I should have said nature of the claim, which is my mistake." Plaintiff moves to strike this brief.

Denied. The Court will not tolerate baseless claims. If Plaintiff has evidence or a showing that AI was used, the Court will hear it. Otherwise, no.

You are warned to not object frivolously.

 

[Franciscus]

Received counselor,

You shall have 72 hours to respond to the Complaint.

For the Court's sanity, please title your submissions with your client's name (in case there are other respondents).

Motion

On behalf of Bezzergeezer

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Your Honor,

The Motion to dismiss quoted below is still pending.

Motion

On Behalf of Bezzergeezer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant Bezzergeezer moves to involuntarily dismiss the case in toto and respectfully alleges the following:

I. Lack of Claim​

The Complaint the Plaintiff has provided contains zero evidence to support the civil charge, whatsoever. Under Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use), "All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission". As such, the Plaintiff has provided no evidentiary material to support any allegation made in the Complaint.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "[a] Motion to Dismiss may be filed... against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge" (emphasis mine). As the Plaintiff has presented a complaint with not so much as a single exhibit for evidence, the Complaint clearly has insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.

II. On Legal Fees​

Legal Damages Act 9(2)(c) et seq. states:

The total case value presented by the Plaintiff would be the value of Av-c035, plus $50,000, plus an additional 30% in legal fees. This places the total case value at no less than $66,666.66 if av-c035 were worth $0.

In order to deter frivolous filings without any shreds of evidence, the Defendant asks for an award of legal fees in the maximum amount. This would be 30% of $66,666.66, which when rounded to the nearest cent is a request for $20,000 in legal fees in the event dismissal is granted.

Should the above quoted motion be granted, a response to complaint would be unnecessary. For this reason, I ask that all deadlines for appearances to this Court and for answers to complaint be postponed until 24 hours after the quoted motion is ruled upon.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

On Behalf of Bezzergeezer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendant Bezzergeezer moves to involuntarily dismiss the case in toto and respectfully alleges the following:

I. Lack of Claim​

The Complaint the Plaintiff has provided contains zero evidence to support the civil charge, whatsoever. Under Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use), "All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission". As such, the Plaintiff has provided no evidentiary material to support any allegation made in the Complaint.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "[a] Motion to Dismiss may be filed... against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge" (emphasis mine). As the Plaintiff has presented a complaint with not so much as a single exhibit for evidence, the Complaint clearly has insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.

II. On Legal Fees​

Legal Damages Act 9(2)(c) et seq. states:

The total case value presented by the Plaintiff would be the value of Av-c035, plus $50,000, plus an additional 30% in legal fees. This places the total case value at no less than $66,666.66 if av-c035 were worth $0.

In order to deter frivolous filings without any shreds of evidence, the Defendant asks for an award of legal fees in the maximum amount. This would be 30% of $66,666.66, which when rounded to the nearest cent is a request for $20,000 in legal fees in the event dismissal is granted.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Motion to Dismiss, BezzerGeezer

Denied.


On Lack of Claim, Movant refers to Rule 4.2 and Rule 5.5. Rule 4.2 is in reference to discovery rules and a further reading of that rule allows for evidentiary inclusion up to the end of Discovery. Furthermore, Rule 5.5 is for lack of a evidence for a civil prosecution. Considering Plaintiff would be in his right to amend the complaint and add evidence prior to Discovery, the Court denies the Lack of Claim argument at this time.

On Legal Fees, the Court will consider Respondent Bezzergeezer’s view on the matter. The Court will reserve its judgement and opinion until a later time.


Motion to Dismiss denied.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

On behalf of Bezzergeezer

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Your Honor,

The Motion to dismiss quoted below is still pending.



Should the above quoted motion be granted, a response to complaint would be unnecessary. For this reason, I ask that all deadlines for appearances to this Court and for answers to complaint be postponed until 24 hours after the quoted motion is ruled upon.

Denied as moot. The deadline for an answer is in about 30 hours for Bezzergeezer, if Counsel would like additional time, I'll gladly extend the deadline by 24 Hours.


For all parties not yet responded, the deadline for presentation remains at 9/29/25 @ 7pm EST (about 30 hours)

 

[Imza]

48 hours, thanks

Your Honour,
Due to irl circumstances, I am requesting a twenty-four-hour extension to file my amicus brief.
Thank you.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,
Due to irl circumstances, I am requesting a twenty-four-hour extension to file my amicus brief.
Thank you.

You have an additional 24 hours, the deadline for this submission is 9/30/25 @ 7:30AM EST.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

I am present as counsel for the RBP.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

I am present as counsel for the RBP.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

View attachment 63140

Thank you counselor,

I'll give you an extension of 24 hours to provide for an Answer to the Complaint, if you show wish. (I know I just denied your motion, but new party, new decision).

@Plura72 The Court will no longer compel the attendance of Omegabiebel considering that the RBP itself is being represented. If you disagree, please make that known within 48 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Thank you counselor,

I'll give you an extension of 24 hours to provide for an Answer to the Complaint, if you show wish. (I know I just denied your motion, but new party, new decision).

@Plura72 The Court will no longer compel the attendance of Omegabiebel considering that the RBP itself is being represented. If you disagree, please make that known within 48 hours.

Your Honor,

The Defense generously accepts the offer of the 24-hour extension to answer the complaint.

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

Bezzergeezer
Redmont Beach Party
Co-Defendants

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. The Defendants DENY that Plaintiff Plura72 purchased the Aventura plot in question from a player by the name of “katto”, NOTING that no player by that name is registered on the server (see: Exhibit D-001).
2. The Defendants DENY that the plot “remained empty until [the Plaintiff] made a deal with the Redmont Beach Party to get the plot used as headquarters”.
3. The Defendants DENY that any agreement with Plaintiff included a binding condition giving Plaintiff an automatic right to reclaim the plot if it “remained unused,” NOTING that no clear or enforceable term to that effect was ever established.
4. The Defendants DENY that “the RBP has not made an effort to return the plot that has remained empty”, NOTING that improvements on the plot are present (including a constructed stage and a boxing ring; see Exhibits D-002, D-003, and D-004).
5. Any other explicit factual claims contained in the Complaint are DENIED.

---

II. DEFENCES​

1. No Enforceable Contract. The alleged “deal” between Plaintiff and Defendants does not constitute a valid or enforceable contract. There was no formal written agreement or exchange of consideration detailing the terms of a plot transfer. Under the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires a clear offer, an unambiguous acceptance, and an exchange of something of value between the parties (consideration), with intent to create legal obligations. As laid out below, none of these are established by the evidence in this case.
   1. No offer has been established. Under the Contracts Act, “[a]n offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances”. Plaintiff’s alleged informal offer to “donate” the plot for RBP’s headquarters use is not established.
      
      Prior precedent is clear here. In Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 11, the Court opinion affirmed that "when an offer is not presented, legal relations cannot be created". Likewise, in dygyee v. Credit Resource [2022] SCR 1, a separate binding Supreme Court precedent, when “attempt at contract formation is ambiguous and the terms are vague”, no contract exists; the offer (and acceptance, as discussed below) must both be clear and ambiguous.
   2. No acceptance has been established. Under the Contracts Act, “[a]cceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means”. Acceptance of the Plaintiff’s alleged terms is not established; the Plaintiff has proffered no evidence that either Defendant provided any response to the Plaintiff that both mirrored the terms of the offer and offered a positive and ambiguous response.
   3. No consideration has been established. Under the Contracts Act, “[c]onsideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy”. No evidence of consideration for either party has been established by evidence in this case. Arguendo, should a property have been merely “donated” by Plaintiff, no consideration would have been provided to Plaintiff, as neither Defendant would have provided anything of value to the Plaintiff in return.
   4. No intent to enter into a contract has been established. Under the Contracts Act, “[p]arties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.” No evidence has been proffered to establish that either RBP or Bezzergeezer had clear intent to create legal obligations.
      
2. No Breach of Contract Occurred. A contract is necessary to recover remedies in a breach of contract issue (see: Dimitre997 v. zeos_exe3 [2022] FCR 66). If a contract is void, recovery cannot be collected (see Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43). If no contract was present here, or if the contract was void, then no breach could plausibly have occurred. Arguendo, even if a valid contract were to be present, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of a material breach thereof, as discussed in the below section.
   
   
3. Plaintiff’s Lack of Evidence. The Plaintiff has provided no evidence alongside his Complaint to prove the existence of the contract or its breach. It is the Plaintiff’s burden to prove each element of his claim by a balance of probabilities. As of this Answer, the Plaintiff has not submitted anything supporting his version of the agreement. Without such evidence, the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the required burden of proof. The Defendants submit that mere assertions in the Complaint – unsupported by evidence – are insufficient for a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case for breach of contract at this stage. As was stated by the Supreme Court in the Appeal of [2024] FCR 77, when "there is insufficient evidence of a contract being formed", the Plaintiff's claims must be treated as "null and void".
   
   
4. Frivolous Lawsuit. The Defendants contend that this lawsuit lacks any serious legal merit or purpose, and thus constitutes a Frivolous Court Case under Part III, Section 4 of the Criminal Code Act. The timing and nature of this filing suggest that Plaintiff is using the courts in retaliation or as a pressure tactic, rather than to resolve a legitimate dispute. Arguendo, By Plaintiff’s own account, he gave the plot as a gift, and his grievance is essentially that the gift wasn’t used fast enough for his liking – a matter of personal dissatisfaction, not legal injury. The Defendants respectfully request that the Court consider dismissing this case on that basis and sanctioning the Plaintiff accordingly. Should this case go to verdict, the Defense asks for full legal fees to be paid at 30% of the case value. (The Defendants are prepared to file a separate formal counterclaim, should that become necessary.)

(The Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses or arguments as may arise during further proceedings.)

---

III. Evidence​

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

See attached file compressed in "Exhibit D-001.zip"

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

Spoiler: Exhibit D-004

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 29th day of September 2025

 

[Muggy21]

We shall now enter Discovery. Discovery shall last 5 days, or may end sooner if both parties agree to such.

Discovery Deadline: 10/4/2025 @ 12:40pm EST.

If more time is needed, whether by agreement, in opposition, or by motion, the Court asks that such requests be made within the Discovery period.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO END DISCOVERY EARLY

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early), the Defense seeks to immediately end Discovery, provided:

1. That there is consent from the Plaintiff provided within the next 24 hours.
2. No further discovery submissions, discovery requests, or interrogatories are submitted by the Plaintiff.

The Defense believes that this will speed the trial along, and hopes that the Plaintiff will consent to this arrangement.

 

[Imza]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour,
As a Councillor within the Town of Aventura and the author of the Aventuran Eviction Regulations, I submit this amicus curiae brief regarding the Aventuran eviction process and the ownership of AV-C035.

Mayor AnimeInc currently holds AV-C035 due to it being evicted by the Town of Aventura under the Aventuran Eviction Regulations. The Regulations state that the Town may evict plots if they are unused, inactive, or lack a valid commercial purpose. In this case, AV-C035 was evicted due to a lack of a valid commercial purpose, which, per the Aventuran Eviction Regulations, is defined as: "A commercial purpose is when a plot demonstrates active trade, rentals, or services that reflect real engagement, not just a placeholder to dodge inactivity."

Once a plot is evicted, it reverts to the town government, and the Mayor holds all town plots in trust. In this capacity, Mayor AnimeInc manages AV-C035 on behalf of the Town until it is auctioned or used for urban development purposes.

Respectfully submitted,
RealImza
Councillor & Head of Legal Affairs, Town of Aventura
Author of the Aventuran Eviction Regulations

 

[Plura72]

Pla

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO END DISCOVERY EARLY

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early), the Defense seeks to immediately end Discovery, provided:

1. That there is consent from the Plaintiff provided within the next 24 hours.
2. No further discovery submissions, discovery requests, or interrogatories are submitted by the Plaintiff.

The Defense believes that this will speed the trial along, and hopes that the Plaintiff will consent to this arrangement.

Plaintiff agrees

 

[Muggy21]

Pla

Plaintiff agrees

Before the Court actions this, are you sure you don't wish to perform any actions permissible prior to the end of Discovery?

 

[Muggy21]

Before the Court actions this, are you sure you don't wish to perform any actions permissible prior to the end of Discovery?

The Court accepts the consent of Parties to close Discovery.

Plaintiff shall have 72 hours to give an Opening Statement; The Court continues to reserve its decision from earlier.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

N THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendants jointly move to involuntarily dismiss the case with prejudice and respectfully alleges the following:

I. Lack of Claim​

As this counsel has previously stated:

The Complaint the Plaintiff has provided contains zero evidence to support the civil charge, whatsoever. Under Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use), "All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission". As such, the Plaintiff has provided no evidentiary material to support any allegation made in the Complaint.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "[a] Motion to Dismiss may be filed... against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge" (emphasis mine). As the Plaintiff has presented a complaint with not so much as a single exhibit for evidence, the Complaint clearly has insufficient evidence to support the civil charge.

In a prior ruling, Your Honor stated:

Considering Plaintiff would be in his right to amend the complaint and add evidence prior to Discovery, the Court denies the Lack of Claim argument at this time.

It is now the end of discovery. Plaintiff has not amended complaint, nor added evidence prior to the conclusion of discovery. At the end of discovery, it remains that the Plaintiff has not submitted a single shred of evidence—no affidavits, no photographs, no transaction logs, no messages—nothing that can substantiate any factual claim made. For this reason, the Defense posits that there remains "insufficient evidence to support the civil... charge" even after discovery has closed.

As was stated by the Supreme Court in the Appeal of [2024] FCR 77, when "there is insufficient evidence of a contract being formed", the Plaintiff's claims must be treated as "null and void". As such, the only claim for relief (e.g. "Breach of Contract") must be treated as void; the Defense asks that Your Honor dismiss for lack of claim arising from the total absence of evidence regarding the existence of a contract.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

N THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The Defendants jointly move to involuntarily dismiss the case with prejudice and respectfully alleges the following:

I. Lack of Claim​

As this counsel has previously stated:


In a prior ruling, Your Honor stated:



It is now the end of discovery. Plaintiff has not amended complaint, nor added evidence prior to the conclusion of discovery. At the end of discovery, it remains that the Plaintiff has not submitted a single shred of evidence—no affidavits, no photographs, no transaction logs, no messages—nothing that can substantiate any factual claim made. For this reason, the Defense posits that there remains "insufficient evidence to support the civil... charge" even after discovery has closed.

As was stated by the Supreme Court in the Appeal of [2024] FCR 77, when "there is insufficient evidence of a contract being formed", the Plaintiff's claims must be treated as "null and void". As such, the only claim for relief (e.g. "Breach of Contract") must be treated as void; the Defense asks that Your Honor dismiss for lack of claim arising from the total absence of evidence regarding the existence of a contract.

@Plura72 You have 48 hours to respond.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Writ of Mandamus - Town of Aventura

The Head of Development for the Town of Aventura, @Epiphone335 , is requested to come and kindly answer a few questions for the Court.

1. When was the notice given against av-c035 prior to eviction?
2. Who and when was av-c035 formally evicted?

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Writ of Mandamus - Town of Aventura

The Head of Development for the Town of Aventura, @Epiphone335 , is requested to come and kindly answer a few questions for the Court.

1. When was the notice given against av-c035 prior to eviction?
2. Who and when was av-c035 formally evicted?

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), "In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery" (emphases mine). Neither the Town of Aventura nor its employees were listed as witnesses during discovery, and (as discovery has closed) the Defense will not be able to present discovery submissions that may relate to the credibility of this witness's testimony nor call expert witnesses of its own.

What's more, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Judicial Standards Act, the plausible scope of a Writ of Mandamus is narrowly restrained; such writs order "the government or a government agency to do or to refrain from doing something as is their duty under the law" (emphasis mine). This Court has not identified a duty under the law in its writ, nor can the defense identify a duty under the law for the Head of Development to testify in Court when not included on a witness list.

As calling new witnesses now sua ponte may introduce testimony that the defense prejudice the case against the Defense, and the scope of a Writ of Mandamus appears to not cover this application, the defense urges reconsideration at this time on the basis that sua ponte calling such a witness for questioning at this time would breach procedure.

---

That all being, the Defense understands that the Court may wish to have this information in front of it when making a decision. Under Sections 13-14 et seq. of the Judicial Standards Act, "[t]he onus of the burden of proof is on the Prosecution" and the standard burden of proof for civil actions is "Balance of Probabilities". In other words, it was the Plaintiff's job to provide related evidence to the Court if the Plaintiff wanted to support its factual allegations, and the Defense urges the Court to reconsider its decision here to bring in new witnesses or evidence post-discovery that would have been part of the Plaintiff's burden.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), "In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery" (emphases mine). Neither the Town of Aventura nor its employees were listed as witnesses during discovery, and (as discovery has closed) the Defense will not be able to present discovery submissions that may relate to the credibility of this witness's testimony nor call expert witnesses of its own.

What's more, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Judicial Standards Act, the plausible scope of a Writ of Mandamus is narrowly restrained; such writs order "the government or a government agency to do or to refrain from doing something as is their duty under the law" (emphasis mine). This Court has not identified a duty under the law in its writ, nor can the defense identify a duty under the law for the Head of Development to testify in Court when not included on a witness list.

As calling new witnesses now sua ponte may introduce testimony that the defense prejudice the case against the Defense, and the scope of a Writ of Mandamus appears to not cover this application, the defense urges reconsideration at this time on the basis that sua ponte calling such a witness for questioning at this time would breach procedure.

---

That all being, the Defense understands that the Court may wish to have this information in front of it when making a decision. Under Sections 13-14 et seq. of the Judicial Standards Act, "[t]he onus of the burden of proof is on the Prosecution" and the standard burden of proof for civil actions is "Balance of Probabilities". In other words, it was the Plaintiff's job to provide related evidence to the Court if the Plaintiff wanted to support its factual allegations, and the Defense urges the Court to reconsider its decision here to bring in new witnesses or evidence post-discovery that would have been part of the Plaintiff's burden.

Granted. I'll instruct the DHS to inform the Town of Aventura that the Writ is of no effect.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

MOTION TO RECONSIDER


Your honor, I suppose the property is under eviction from the aventura`s goverenment legislations. if this eviction goes through it will result in harm to the plaintiff by not allowing them to their property back.

Denied.

You submitted a Motion to Reconsider by stating the the property was undergoing an eviction. The Court already took note that the property was in the possession of AnimeInc in its original Order (#3).

You attempted to make this Court reconsider its prior decision on the academic view the eviction had not yet transpired. In the Court's view, this is frivolous and perjurious.

I find you in direct Contempt of Court, you shall be fined $5,000 and held in prison for 10 minutes. Furthermore, the Court will refer to the DoJ for its consideration on the charge of Perjury.


You have 21 hours to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Muggy21]

Plaintiff has not objected to the Motion to Dismiss within the allotted time.

The Court is in recess pending its Order on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#33).

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Dismiss, with prejudice - Motion to Dismiss #2, BezzerGeezer

Plaintiff, in its complaint, wished to proffer to the Court that he was harmed by Defendant’s failure to uphold a contract effected between Parties. Defendant counters this assertion by stating a lawful contract was never entered into by Parties, thus any alleged agreement is void.


The Court has two questions to answer in its analysis:

1. Was this contract enforceable?
2. Under what legal theory of damage is the prayer alleged by Plaintiff possible under a property contract?

I. CONTRACT ENFORCABILITY


As graciously provided by Matthew100x, the Plaintiff’s complaint indicates the existence of a fee simple determinable contract (F.S.D. Contract) between Parties. In this controversy, Plura72 is the grantor and RBP is the holder of the land (av-c035). The Court, in reviewing the Complaint in the best light, sees the only condition of conveyance of this F.S.D. Contract to be the its utilization as “a party headquarters”; Thus, when the building remained empty and was subsequently evicted, it is evident that the RBP didn’t keep their end of the bargain. To contest this, Defendant has entered D-002, D-003, and D-004, all of which are prima facia evidence of improvements (As discovery is closed, this evidence was accepted by Plaintiff without contention). The Court thus finds itself at a critical juncture. The Plaintiff contends that the RBP failed to discharge its contractual obligations, while the Defendant simultaneously denies the existence of any contract and asserts compliance with the alleged terms regardless.

Thus, the Court offers the following opinion:

1. Plaintiff and Defendant did enter a contract, one formed implicitly from parties’ conduct. Plaintiff gifted/transferred/<insert_lawful_action> to Defendant in support of the RBP, with the condition that it be maintained as an HQ; By operation and inference, the Contracts Act language treats implied terms the same legal efficacy as express terms in the formulation of a binding agreement.
   
   
2. So, there was an agreement between Parties. What were the terms of this agreement? Plaintiff has undoubtedly failed to provide any documentary evidence to this Court to support the existence of the precise terms offered. The Court may assume basic tenets of this agreement.
   1. Plaintiff will transfer av-c035 to Defendant.
   2. The conveyance was a gift, there was no consideration to support the Plaintiff's purported contract.
      

1. This is it. As explained in the amicus brief, an F.S.D. contract is not commonplace in the Commonwealth, even if it may be hypothetically enforceable. Given its uniqueness, the Court will not uphold this provision without evidence. Thus, since there is no provision that is provable, this provision of the contract fails all requirements for contracts as required under the Contract Act § 4.

The fee simple determinable provision of any alleged agreement in this controversy is null and void (see Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth [2022] SCR 11.) Plaintiff does not have a right to revert the property back into his possession.



II. THEORIES OF HARM


The Plaintiff gifted the property to the RBP, there is no lawful basis to revert the gift. Gifts, once lawfully completed, are irrevocable absent a showing of fraud, duress, or other unlawful acts. None of these were proven here. The plaintiff’s own pleadings acknowledged that he voluntarily transferred the property. The Plaintiff cannot cloak the gift as a conditional arrangement, unless he can establish a theory of fraud, unjust enrichment, or conversion. The pleadings are barren of such allegations.

The $50,000 claim and prayer for restoration of ownership is therefore baseless.

Whereas, the principal tenets of the contract between Parties is void, the Court does not see a valid claim for which relief may be granted.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.


III. THE CASE IS ABSOLUTELY FRIVOLOUS


Further, the Court finds this case to be absolutely frivolous. Given the invocation of this instant dispositive motion, the Court can’t do a through fact-finding analysis; Not that this matters, considering discovery was closed without any factual evidence being entered.Thus, the Court looks at the Complaint’s allegations in the best light possible.
1) Plura72 purchased av-c035 for an undisclosed amount, this fact establishes prior ownership (Katto = KattoDE).
2) Plura72 made no improvements to the property,leaving it “empty” until he entered into the previously described contract with the RBP.
3) Fact 3 is void.
4) Fact 4 is void.
Claim for Relief 1) Breach of Contract - no contract enforceable.

Upon a prima facie review, the prayers for relief advanced by the Plaintiff are incoherent and legally unsustainable. While the request for the return of the property may, in theory, align with the purported contractual claim, the additional demand for $50,000 in damages lacks any rational or legal foundation. Ordinarily, contractual damages are either liquidated or compensatory in nature, reflecting the extent of the breach and the corresponding loss. Punitive or nominal damages may arise in limited circumstances, but they do not exist inherently from the existence of a contract. If the Plaintiff were to regain possession of the property, they would be fully restored to their original position, thus negating any basis for compensatory damages. No evidence has been presented to suggest the existence of a liquidated damages clause, nor any contractual or statutory right to additional compensation. Accordingly, the only remaining categories of damages would be either punitive or nominal. As nominal damages are capped at $7,500, the balance of the $50,000 sought must, by implication, constitute a demand for punitive relief.

However, the Court finds no basis to conclude that a simple breach of contract would warrant punitive damages of $42,500. Therefore, the Court determines that the damages claimed are grossly exaggerated, unsupported by law or fact, and are frivolous in nature.







The Court strongly admonishes Plaintiff that any future frivolous filings may result in heightened sanctions, adverse orders for cost-sharing, and other actions permitted under law. For the purposes of calculations under the Legal Damages Act, the value of this case is $50,000; Defendents Motion to Dismiss (#6) Claim II (Legal Fees) are adjudged below as a counterclaim.




Thus, this Court orders the following:

1. Plura72 is guilty of Frivolous Court Case. A fine of 1 penalty unit shall be assessed and the charge shall be actioned by the DHS
2. To inhibit future Plaintiff frivolity, the Court awards Legal Fees payable to MZLD in the amount of $10,000.
3. For the outrageous conduct of Plaintiff, with consideration of his history as a vexatious litigator, the Court, under its authority of the Legal Damages Act § (5) (2)(a), awards Defendant BezzerGeezer, $5,000.00 in punitive damages.
4. For the outrageous conduct of Plaintiff, with consideration of his history as a vexatious litigator, the Court, under its authority of the Legal Damages Act § (5) (2)(a), awards Defendant RBP, $5,000.00 in punitive damages.