Lawsuit: In Session Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Snowy_Heart (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On September 1st, 2023 the elections for the House of Representatives opened. The Plaintiff decided to declare for the election on September 2nd, 2023. Once declared the Plaintiff started advertising for votes and getting people on their side. After seven days the Polls opened with everything going as intended except, the Plaintiff was told they were unable to run. The reasoning was lack of playtime. At the time of the Polls opening and when declaring the Plaintiff not only had the playtime to run but fulfilled every other requirement to run.

The requirement is 24 hours of playtime. Despite having this Snowy_Heart was told they were unallowed to run due to it needing to be active playtime. This is not stated anywhere inside of the law and the law only states 24 hours of playtime, active and inactive being combined.


I. PARTIES
1. Snowy_Heart
2. Department of State

II. FACTS
1. September 1st, 2023 Election for HoR opened.
2. September 2nd, 2023 Snowy_Heart declares.
3. September 8th, 2023 after the polls opened Snowy_Heart was told they were unable to run mid vote.
4. All votes for Snowy_Heart were removed and Snowy_Heart was removed from the election.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DoS broke not only Constitutional Right 1 which states anyone has a right to run for elected office unless for punishment of a crime.
2. The DoS broke law by disallowing a Citizen with able playtime from running for election. The playtime Snowy_Heart had at the time was 28 hours which is 4 hours above the not only required playtime to run but, higher than the playtime in the last 30 days needed to declare.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $15,000 (15k) for loss of enjoyment in Redmont.
2. A Formal Apology from the DoS.
3. $7,500 (7.5k) in Legal Fees.
4. Clarification on the required playtime.
5. $15,000 (15k) Compensatory Damages for not being able to run in the election.

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 9th day of September 2023.

Act of Congress - Electoral Act

A BILL To Amend the constitution and provide for elections The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short...

www.democracycraft.net

Edit - Only fixed some errors and a fact.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Snowy_heart v. Commonwealth of Redmont. 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, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Dartanman]

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

Snowy_Heart
(Plaintiff)

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
(Defendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that on September 1st, 2023, the declarations for the election for the House of Representatives opened.
2. AFFIRM that on September 2nd, 2023 Snowy_Heart declared she was contesting a seat.
3. AFFIRM that at some point after the polls opened, Snowy_Heart was told they were unable to run mid-vote.
4. AFFIRM all votes for Snowy_Heart were removed and Snowy_Heart was removed from the election, however NOTE that all people who voted for her were contacted and informed they can change their vote. This evidence, however, is classified. (Exhibit 1)

II. DEFENSES
1. The Constitutional Right that states anyone has a right to run for elected office unless as a punishment for a crime is part of the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which also says that these rights are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”

An Active Playtime requirement is certainly a reasonable limit. Furthermore, it is prescribed by law (Electoral Act), case law ([2021] SCR 12), constitutional law (Electoral Act), and DoS policy.

2. According to a ruling made on a Motion to Dismiss in [2021] SCR 12:

“It is the unanimous opinion that if the only way the Department of State has been able to properly review playtime has been based on /info, and they have applied that requirement to every person in such [an] election equally, the Plaintiff does not retain the right to be included in such [a ballot].”

The /info command has been replaced with /about, but it holds the same function. The Department of State has only been able to properly review playtime based on the Active Playtime statistic given by /about. Given this, and the historic precedent of [2021] SCR 12 (which the Federal Court cannot override), it is clear that the Plaintiff does not retain the right to be included in the ballot for this election.

3. It is well-established that Active Playtime is the only reasonable and accurate metric for playtime, because AFK time is, by definition, not playtime. While the last 30 days “playtime” displays AFK time, the “Active Playtime” metric does not show AFK time.

Furthermore, the law was clearly intended to only allow active players into Congress – not players who AFK to get ahead.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit 1:

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 September, 2023

 

[Dartanman]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

It appears the Plaintiff and Defense agree on the facts of the case, and only disagree on legal definitions and/or the legality of what occurred. For these reasons, the Commonwealth requests Summary Judgement.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the plaintiff have any objections to a summary judgment?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Does the plaintiff have any objections to a summary judgment?

Your honor, the Plaintiff would like to proceed to opening statements so that we can present our reasoning why we believe the terms should be interpreted the way we advocate for. Once opening statements are presented, summary judgment is acceptable to the Plaintiff.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the defendant have any objection to this arrangement?

 

[Dartanman]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COUNTERSUIT

The Commonwealth would like to add the following Counter Prayer for Relief:

The Defendant seeks the following from the Plaintiff:
1. Legal fees of $4500 (the cost of a Prosecutor defending a lawsuit).

If Summary Judgement occurs after Opening Statements, we are happy to cut that in half.

 

[Dartanman]

Does the defendant have any objection to this arrangement?

Your honor, we have no objections to this arrangement.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COUNTERSUIT

The Commonwealth would like to add the following Counter Prayer for Relief:

The Defendant seeks the following from the Plaintiff:
1. Legal fees of $4500 (the cost of a Prosecutor defending a lawsuit).

If Summary Judgement occurs after Opening Statements, we are happy to cut that in half.

Counselor, this is a separate matter from the current case. I cannot allow this arrangement to continue unless the counterclaim is accepted by the plaintiff.

Given that I have made a public comment about a countersuit I understand that there may be a conflict of interest. I leave it to the plaintiff to decide whether or not to motion to recuse. If a motion to recuse is made, I ask that the defendant please file a new case against the plaintiff so that way another judge can be assigned to the matter.

I will continue to preside over the current matter until further notice.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the plaintiff wish to keep the arrangement with the counterclaim, challenge the counterclaim in this court, or have the counterclaim remanded to a new trial?

 

[Dartanman]

Counselor, this is a separate matter from the current case. I cannot allow this arrangement to continue unless the counterclaim is accepted by the plaintiff.

Given that I have made a public comment about a countersuit I understand that there may be a conflict of interest. I leave it to the plaintiff to decide whether or not to motion to recuse. If a motion to recuse is made, I ask that the defendant please file a new case against the plaintiff so that way another judge can be assigned to the matter.

I will continue to preside over the current matter until further notice.

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

There is precedent from the Supreme Court that a counter prayer for relief can be granted (Lawsuit: Adjourned - The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18). The Federal Court cannot override Supreme Court precedent, so a counter prayer that is based on legal principles such as legal fees must be permitted.

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

If the Motion to Reconsider is overruled: The Commonwealth does not wish to have a legal battle over this at the current time, and will be happy to dismiss a counter-claim (ideally without prejudice) for the duration of this case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Does the plaintiff wish to keep the arrangement with the counterclaim, challenge the counterclaim in this court, or have the counterclaim remanded to a new trial?

The Plaintiff wholly objects to the counterclaim and would like this matter to stay germane.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Plaintiff wholly objects to the counterclaim and would like this matter to stay germane.

If the plaintiff wishes to respond to the motions prior to the decision, they will have 48 hours to do so. Otherwise, please inform the court that you do not contend the motion and I will come to a decision tonight.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

If the plaintiff wishes to respond to the motions prior to the decision, they will have 48 hours to do so. Otherwise, please inform the court that you do not contend the motion and I will come to a decision tonight.

The Plaintiff does not accept the counterclaim in this suit, your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Plaintiff does not accept the counterclaim in this suit, your honor.

Counselor the Court understand that is your position. Do you want to add any arguments? Defense Counsel has submitted a motion that is pending that this Court can't ignore. This Court is asking to make sure that your side has a response before making a decision.

If the decision is to allow the counter claim, it will be done in a separate case from this one to keep it germane and prevent a conflict of interest.

 

[Dartanman]

Counselor the Court understand that is your position. Do you want to add any arguments? Defense Counsel has submitted a motion that is pending that this Court can't ignore. This Court is asking to make sure that your side has a response before making a decision.

If the decision is to allow the counter claim, it will be done in a separate case from this one to keep it germane and prevent a conflict of interest.

Your honor, if it must be filed in a separate case, the Commonwealth wishes to have it dismissed for now, otherwise it could cause a chain reaction of infinite cases.

 

[Matthew100x]

The only reason why this would be its own separate case is so that way it can be assigned its own judge separate from the current thread to avoid confusion. It should not cause a chain of infinite counter counterclaims.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor,

The plaintiff asserts that legal fees are not permissible by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a separate entity that must be treated differently than regular citizens. It does not need the legal fees as the Commonwealth dedicates money for legal causes as it is. Whether or not a counterclaim can be accepted in this Court will not be disputed by the Plaintiff.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Decision on Motion

Counter-Plaintiff's Stance:
1. Wishes to press a counterclaim of $4,000 dollars.
2. That a counterclaim is allowable under SCR 18 [2022].
3. That if the motion is overruled, to continue the case as is and allow the Commonwealth to bring up the issue in the future.

Counter-Defendant's Stance
1. Does not accept the counterclaim.
2. Wishes for the case to remain germane.
3. Legal fees are not permissible for the Commonwealth to collect due to it being a separate entity that dedicates money for legal causes.

The Court's Opinion
1. This matter may be judicable, however, the court declines to comment or weigh in on the merits as it is an issue that requires trying.
2. Due to this court's presiding judge having originally brought up the counterclaim in a public manner, that any counterclaim would have to be done as a separate case under the caption Commonwealth v. Snowy_Heart to avoid a conflict of interest.
3. That the matter of counterclaims typically are handled within a case, however, in instances where a conflict of interest is given due to circumstances, that a counterclaim must be bifurcated from the original claim and handled separately, regardless of the results of the original case.

I trust that this decision resolves this matter. Given that there was no objection to the arrangement and only to the counterclaim, we shall continue with opening statements followed by the summary judgment.

The plaintiff shall have 48 hours to make their statement. Kindly inform this court if you need any additional time for the submission.

 

[Matthew100x]

48 hours have since passed and the plaintiff has not posted an opening statement nor asked for an extension. While Common Law allows for a late submission, I will not be accepting a submission 12 hours after this post.

The defendant shall have 48 hours to make their statement. Kindly inform this court if you need any additional time for the submission.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, this is a case of bumbling bureaucracy. In this case, the Department of State, a bureaucratic organization, bumbled around while enforcing policies, not providing clarity on the enforcement of such. The generic term playtime is just that: generic. Active playtime is often enumerated expressly in policies and statutes as it is a specific subset of playtime. Playtime in and of itself, as a generic term, includes all playtime, whether inactive or active.

When you run /about on someone, it lists two values that describe playtime. The Department of State did not make it clear WHICH one of those values would be used, and assumptions cannot be warranted that active playtime was the intended one. Since they said playtime, they must use the raw definition of 'playtime', which in a gaming sense, means all time spent logged onto a game regardless of how much of that time was spent actively playing. The dictionary is clear, and the law is unclear. Therefore, we must use what we can to clarify the matter. The Court is not in the business of legislating and therefore cannot answer whether or not active playtime would be more prudent or "sensible" as a law; the Court must rule according to how the text is written, as that is how law is accessed and absorbed by the general public. What good is law if we cannot rely on our understanding of the English language to comply with it?

2. According to a ruling made on a Motion to Dismiss in [2021] SCR 12:

“It is the unanimous opinion that if the only way the Department of State has been able to properly review playtime has been based on /info, and they have applied that requirement to every person in such [an] election equally, the Plaintiff does not retain the right to be included in such [a ballot].”

Furthermore, the defense attempted to slip this severely out-of-place clause pulled from a case in which I represented the Plaintiff thinking I would not catch the lack of context. Back then, playtime was displayed much differently as the metrics displayed back then (see /info is an old command) are different than they are now. Further, this ruling did not result in a dismissal and therefore did not set a precedent. The law of the case was never examined, and the case ended with a disagreement regarding the facts of the case. The Department of State was able to see both values the Plaintiff had in their /about, and therefore this citation does not hold water as it relied on a time when one playtime value was hidden from public view and different ones were publicly seen including by the Department.

The Plaintiff argues that active playtime is a reasonable limit. That may be true, but it is not in the business of the Courts to carve out exceptions to rights especially when the term 'active' playtime is nowhere to be found in Department of State policy. The crux of this case is not whether or not that restriction is reasonable, but rather that the Department did not specify that they were seeking active playtime and therefore must have their policy interpreted as it is currently written. I ask the Court to find the Commonwealth liable on all counts of wrongdoing, and to grant a full prayer of relief. Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Due to the decision made in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 utilizing the Judicial Fix Act, enforcement of this constitutional amendment is in play (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18), therefore because this case involves a constitutional challenge, the Federal Court of Redmont can no longer over see this case (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act).

 

[Dartanman]

Due to the decision made in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 utilizing the Judicial Fix Act, enforcement of this constitutional amendment is in play (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18), therefore because this case involves a constitutional challenge, the Federal Court of Redmont can no longer over see this case (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act).

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Since this case is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, it must be dismissed. The Plaintiff can re-file in the Supreme Court if they still wish to pursue it.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Since this case is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, it must be dismissed. The Plaintiff can re-file in the Supreme Court if they still wish to pursue it.

Given the current circumstances in the judiciary, I am putting this case on a one week recess.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, a week has since passed. Is there an update on proceedings?