Lawsuit: Adjourned Socialist Party of the People v. The Department of State [2021] FCR 107

Status
Not open for further replies.

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Socialist Party of the People
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of State
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Deputy Secretary had misled a candidate about requirements to run in the November House of Representatives election. The candidate was made aware of a disqualifying factor (one factor), the lack of 12 hours in the past 30 days. The candidate reached this time and had declared without issue until reaching the ballot where the Department of State chose to disqualify the plaintiff. The candidate sought remediation in the form of notifying voters that they were provided the opportunity to vote for a new candidate, but the Department of State has refused to comment on this. This has resulted in damages to the reputation of the Socialist Party of the People.

I. PARTIES
1. Socialist Party of the People (Plaintiff, hereafter referred to as the SPP)
2. Heather (Deputy Secretary)
3. Department of State (Defendant)
4. Aladeen21 (Leader)
5. xeu100 (Vice Leader, Candidate)

II. FACTS
1. xeu100 had declared candidacy for the House of Representatives
2. xeu100 was disqualified, being notified by Heather under their capacity as Deputy Secretary, for missing the 12 hours of playtime required in the past 30 days.
3. xeu100 had declared once again after meeting this specific requirement, continuing to campaign.
4. The elections had opened and shortly thereafter the plaintiff was disqualified, without the plaintiff's voters being notified.
5. After the disqualification, rumors about the xeu100's election as Vice Leader began.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. These actions have damaged the SPP's reputation and the reputation of the SPP's leadership.
2. These actions have disenfranchised the SPP's voters.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Voters of the November House of Representatives election be notified, that the election may be delayed until all voters are notified.
2. The Department of State conducts a formal investigation of Deputy Secretary Heather's negligence.
3. The Department of State announces a formal apology in the #government-announcements channel to the SPP and the candidate.

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 7th day of November 2021

DOS Ticket #17
Discord_3zr0nvzYoe.png
Discord_TyPBrrvm5S.png



Proof of Negligence, a failure of the Deputy Secretary to properly inform xeu100:
Discord_jn4BqzieVt.png


An example that the negligence of the Deputy Secretary has put the SPP's leadership in question, thus the SPP itself, damaging its reputation:
Discord_kWZw9fkaJI.png


Proof that the Deputy Secretary was combative to xeu100 and not working towards a resolution, as requested by xeu100 to remediate the situation.
Discord_EVylRZ3nQA.png
 
Last edited:

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Court-Federal-Seal.png


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the Socialist Party of the People v. The Department of State. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Would either party be opened to an In-Game Trial?
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your honor, in light of the recent restarting of the House election, the plaintiff seeks an emergency injunction against the defendant to restrain them from continuing with this course and to restore the election. Not only are there concerns about the constitutionality of the defense's actions, but this case is also in active litigation and thus it is inappropriate for the defense to make significant changes without notifying the court.

I would also like to highlight that Secretary End threatened this maneuver if the plaintiff did not withdraw this case, this is clearly hostile behavior and was meant to force the plaintiff's hand to prevent an electoral loss.
1636414475853.png
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
I will hereby be Denying this injection based on the fact that the Department of States has already reset the votes and a new ballot has been formed. However I hereby order the Department of State to refrain from making any further decisions to impact the outcome or facilitation of these elections.
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your honor, I apologize for the late-night motion, but the plaintiff wishes to motion for discovery of all DOS communications pertaining to this election past the date and time at which this incident was reported. Due to the length of this incident, the plaintiff seeks the full record as it would not be possible to separate non-relevant discussions due to any lack of context.

If the defendant claims that there is classified material, the plaintiff is ready for a closed court session.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
I will be DENYING this motion on the grounds that this is not a valid motion within the specified Court Rules and Procedures
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your honor, one final action for the night, the plaintiff seeks to amend the prayers for relief due to the extenuating circumstances in this case, where the defendant's actions reset the election. The previous prayers for relief have lost some of their relevance and in light of new evidence (the quote by Secretary End), the defense believes it is appropriate to do so.


"IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Voters of the November House of Representatives election be notified, that the election may be delayed until all voters are notified.
2. The Department of State conducts a formal investigation of Deputy Secretary Heather's negligence.
3. The Department of State announces a formal apology in the #government-announcements channel to the SPP and the candidate."

TO

"IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Department of State conducts a formal investigation of Deputy Secretary Heather's negligence.
2. The Department of State announces a formal apology in the #government-announcements channel to the SPP, the candidate, and the people, for the threat made against the candidate and for the confusion during this election
3. The Department of State introduces a system to double-check a candidate's eligibility before voting begins."
 
Last edited:

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
If it may please the court, can the Department of State request that the plaintiff provide documented evidence showing reputational damage to both the SPP leadership and the SPP, prior to the Government formally responding to this case.

This might be statistics which represent a fall in approval rating.
 
Last edited:

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your honor, the plaintiff objects to Secretary End's request, it bypassed the Attorney General again, need we remind the court of the Secretary's actions that resulted in settlement discussions to cease.

It is unusual for someone not from the Office of the Attorney to engage in a case against a government body.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your honor, one final action for the night, the plaintiff seeks to amend the prayers for relief due to the extenuating circumstances in this case, where the defendant's actions reset the election. The previous prayers for relief have lost some of their relevance and in light of new evidence (the quote by Secretary End), the defense believes it is appropriate to do so.


"IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Voters of the November House of Representatives election be notified, that the election may be delayed until all voters are notified.
2. The Department of State conducts a formal investigation of Deputy Secretary Heather's negligence.
3. The Department of State announces a formal apology in the #government-announcements channel to the SPP and the candidate."

TO

"IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Department of State conducts a formal investigation of Deputy Secretary Heather's negligence.
2. The Department of State announces a formal apology in the #government-announcements channel to the SPP, the candidate, and the people, for the threat made against the candidate and for the confusion during this election
3. The Department of State introduces a system to double-check a candidate's eligibility before voting begins."
I will allow this altered Prayer for Relief
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
If it may please the court, can the Department of State request that the plaintiff provide documented evidence showing reputational damage to both the SPP leadership and the SPP, prior to the Government formally responding to this case.

This might be statistics which represent a fall in approval rating.
The Court will be holding you in Contempt of Court for answering a thread you are not summoned to. I hereby order the DOJ to fine you the amount of $20. Although you spoke out of turn, you have raised a solid and good point.

The Plaintiff will provide evidence that damage was inflicted on the SPP Leadership and Party due to the statements and actions in this election. How they produce this data is up to them.

The SPP will have 72 hours to produce this data. Until then the Attorney General still has the same deadline to produce his answer to the complaint or issue a Motion to Dismiss.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your honor, the plaintiff objects to Secretary End's request, it bypassed the Attorney General again, need we remind the court of the Secretary's actions that resulted in settlement discussions to cease.

It is unusual for someone not from the Office of the Attorney to engage in a case against a government body.
Objection is noted
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
Your honor,

The Secretary of State will be representing the Department of State in this case.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Thank you Mr. Attorney General, As this was not made clear before, i will be removing the Contempt of Court fine. In the future, if the AG is not representing a department, I would like that to be stated. Given the the State Secretary will be representing themselves and their department, i will allow and additional 48 hours from this point for them to give their response to this case.
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your Honor, the plaintiff objects to the removal of the fine due to the fact that the Attorney General had not notified the court of this intent, furthermore the Attorney General was actively seeking settlement, indicating that they were working on this case originally, not the Secretary.

The plaintiff also wishes to note for the record that having anyone outside of the Office of the Attorney General acting as counsel is bizarre in of itself and not apart of the general conduct of a lawsuit of this manner.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your Honor, the plaintiff objects to the removal of the fine due to the fact that the Attorney General had not notified the court of this intent, furthermore the Attorney General was actively seeking settlement, indicating that they were working on this case originally, not the Secretary.

The plaintiff also wishes to note for the record that having anyone outside of the Office of the Attorney General acting as counsel is bizarre in of itself and not apart of the general conduct of a lawsuit of this manner.
Your objection is noted
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Your honour, I will resubmit this request prior to the commencement of this case:

If it may please the court, can the Department of State request that the plaintiff provide documented evidence showing reputational damage to both the SPP leadership and the SPP, prior to the Government formally responding to this case.

This might be statistics which represent a fall in approval rating.

We request that our response time starts from when the plaintiff has posted sufficient evidence to support their claims.
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your honor, we object to the Secretary's request as requests like these can be fulfilled after appearing and conducting introductions for the case. The defense has been provided ample time, due to the unusual substitution of the Attorney General and the Secretary, to address the writ of summons, and such this case should proceed to introductions while the plaintiff provides the requested evidence.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Your honour, the Defence wishes to have all of the evidence tabled to support the claims for relief prior to commencing this case.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your honour, I will resubmit this request prior to the commencement of this case:

If it may please the court, can the Department of State request that the plaintiff provide documented evidence showing reputational damage to both the SPP leadership and the SPP, prior to the Government formally responding to this case.

This might be statistics which represent a fall in approval rating.

We request that our response time starts from when the plaintiff has posted sufficient evidence to support their claims.

I hereby grant this Request. The Socialist Party of the People have 72 hours to collect this unbiased data via google forms, or any other form for polling. This evidence must be produced within 72 hours, that is not then enough time to get accurate data. Once the data is collected and verified it must be made available to the defense. Also Usernames must be collected in order to verify the validity of the data.

Once the data is verified by both parties the Defenses 48 hours will start.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your honor, we object to the Secretary's request as requests like these can be fulfilled after appearing and conducting introductions for the case. The defense has been provided ample time, due to the unusual substitution of the Attorney General and the Secretary, to address the writ of summons, and such this case should proceed to introductions while the plaintiff provides the requested evidence.
Objection overruled
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your honor, the Plaintiff would like to court to halt the fishing expedition conducted by the Office of the Attorney General. It is clear that the timing of this questioning of our leadership team is related to our case, that the government is attempting to intimidate the Plaintiff. This is an obstruction of justice, your honor.

This also raises concerns that the DOJ is being weaponized for political gain, not to mention that General Secretary Krix (of the SPP) did not campaign a candidate to the user who reported this to our leadership. It was also reported that Secretary End asked this question as well, this is clearly an effort related to this case.
Screen_Shot_2021-11-10_at_1.05.59_PM.png
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Objection your honour, this has been an on-going investigation for almost two weeks. The matter was referred to the Attorney General on the 3rd of November.

This is an unrelated investigation into allegations of electoral fraud. It would be remiss of the court to intervene in an investigation at such a crucial time in the electoral period. As for the allegations against myself, I initiated the investigation on the 3rd of November in-line with my departmental duties and concluded the investigation on the same day. The plaintiff hadn't even been disqualified from the election at that stage.
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your Honor, the Plaintiff wishes to submit the report from Crystal Analytics on the approval ratings of the Socialist Party of the People. To the knowledge of the Plaintiff, these results are accurate

As a side note to the Defense, I (xeu100) am not the Plaintiff, that the Socialist Party of the People is.

(Please see attached PDF for results)
 

Attachments

  • Crystal Analytics_ Report on Series 1192021B for Customer Socialist Party of the People.pdf
    134.3 KB · Views: 44

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Objection to the evidence on a point of admissibility your honour. The plaintiff cannot say in good faith that these results are an even mere accurate representation of the party's approval ratings when it hasn't been advertised widely and has a sample size of 14 - of which half of the respondents have an interest in the party. i.e. the chairman voted 'great' then 'terrible' which we can assume was to skew the results in the party's favour.

Also important to note is that the plaintiff's representative owns Crystal Analytics: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/company-registration-crystal-analytics.8975/

This is not admissible evidence to support the claims for relief.
 
Last edited:

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
Your Honor, it has been advertised directly to people, in-game advertisements, and on discord. As far as I'm aware, these are all the platforms available to campaign in. The size of SPP voters as mentioned in my report is not many, so 14 is already comprising a large portion of our voters. Many of our members are not members or are inactive, subsequently, our consistent voting pool from our own member base is small. Leadership are allowed to feel and log discontent, they were not especially asked to fill out this poll and did it of their own volition. Due to the format of the party, no one person can make decisions for the entire party, thus our leadership can't control the outcome of every situation, understandably they may feel discontent.

I do own and operate Crystal Analytics, whether I collected this evidence under the brand of the SPP or not is not relevant as the information is the same. I did not misrepresent the firm in any way and was simply the means to collect the data in the most efficient manner (being that Crystal Analytics has the templates for polls already set up).

The Plaintiff would also like to mention that the parameters for the poll were as follows: usernames are made available, the data is to be unbiased, and the Plaintiff is to provide the evidence within 72 hours. So far, we have met these parameters to the best of our ability, even if the Defense disagrees with how we've done it. As far as the Plaintiff is concerned, the order in which this case was conducted is unusual and thus we have had to take unusual measures to meet the deadlines imposed by this court.

On top of all of this, the Plaintiff would like to mention that there have been no formal introductory statements or calling of witnesses, as is standard in cases. The Plaintiff's case does not rest solely upon this poll, but it is a large component of it.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your honor, the Plaintiff would like to court to halt the fishing expedition conducted by the Office of the Attorney General. It is clear that the timing of this questioning of our leadership team is related to our case, that the government is attempting to intimidate the Plaintiff. This is an obstruction of justice, your honor.

This also raises concerns that the DOJ is being weaponized for political gain, not to mention that General Secretary Krix (of the SPP) did not campaign a candidate to the user who reported this to our leadership. It was also reported that Secretary End asked this question as well, this is clearly an effort related to this case.
Screen_Shot_2021-11-10_at_1.05.59_PM.png
Objection Overruled it is not the place of the court to intervein on an investigation. I will however urge the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to not act in bad faith as that my reflect poorly on them from the view point of the court.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your Honor, the Plaintiff wishes to submit the report from Crystal Analytics on the approval ratings of the Socialist Party of the People. To the knowledge of the Plaintiff, these results are accurate

As a side note to the Defense, I (xeu100) am not the Plaintiff, that the Socialist Party of the People is.

(Please see attached PDF for results)
The Court will NOT be accepting this as viable evidence. There is clear potential bias, sample size is to small and this was not a poll taken by the general public. You as an attorney should no better Mr. Xeu100. The court will not be resetting the time on when the evidence must be produced. From now you still have 59 hours to produce Unbiased and accurate data showing that the Parties reputation was hurt by this. I will also be adding that you MUST ask what their opinion was Before the supposed slander and after. This will help the court decipher the data in a much more clear way.
 

xeu100

Citizen
RBA
xeu100
xeu100
willow-res
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO WITHDRAW

The Socialist Party of the People
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of State
Defendant

MOTION TO WITHDRAW
Plaintiff moves to withdraw this case for the following:
1. The court has ordered Plaintiff to conduct an impossible poll due to the conditions of the politics surrounding this case and the timeframe given.
2. Plaintiff's resources are finite.
3. The People of Redmont deserve an ending to an unfortunate incident and for the House elections to reach an end.
4. Negative press of this case may have further impact on Plaintiff than the incident of concern.

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 10th day of November 2021
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
This motion is not a motion outlined but you as the Plaintiff can withdraw the case at anytime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top