Lawsuit: Dismissed Taelor v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 35

[Taelor]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Taelor
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On October 18, 2023, I set a bounty on a player who had been asking to go to jail as they were wanted. About 20 minutes later, AlexanderLove came to my residential plot and told me to come out. When I did, I was arrested because I had set a bounty which AlexanderLove stated is "Incitement and Assault". I was then moved to the prison bus and held there for an undetermined amount of time as the cells were full and originally they had said that my time was not counting down as I was only "detained" but ended up with AlexanderLove telling the police officer, JediAJman to set a timer and use that as my "jail time" while, at this point, I had already been in the bus about 5 minutes. After they released me a few minutes later (so it was about 8 minutes total but I wouldn't know as it wasn't logged), I was fined $100 which I received in my in-game mail, and about 5 minutes later, I was fined another $200. This was Taelor's first offence for either charge.


I. PARTIES
1. Taelor (Plantiff)
2. Department of Justice (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On October 18, 2023, Taelor was arrested for "Incitement and assault" after setting a bounty.
2. Taelor was held for an unspecified amount of time.
3. Taelor was fined a total of $300 by the DOJ.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The law 17.1 Encitement which follows The Saviour Act states: "The attempt to coax or encourage someone to break the law. First Offence: $100 fine". Nowhere does it specify bounty.
2. I was never put in actual jail and there was never a set time/timer for my sentence.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $300 in unjust fees returned
2. $500 owed for unspecified time in the jail bus
3. $1000 in emotional damages

V. Evidence:

Evidence A:

Repealed - Saviour Act

Repealed by Savior* Act House Vote: 9-0-0 Senate Vote: 5-0-0 A BILL TO Protect citizens of Redmont The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby...

www.democracycraft.net

Evidence B:


Evidence C:

Evidence D:

Evidence E:

Evidence F:

VI. Whitnesses:
1. v__d (2 underscores between the letters)

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 18 day of October 2023

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Taelor v. The Commonwealth of Redmont.

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.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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

Taelor
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense affirms facts one and three, but denies fact two on the grounds of lack of evidence. As Jedi will testify, Taelor was detained only for reasonable time taken to transport and process her as well as ensure she serves her time.
2. The defense pleads not liable on all claims. Further, the defense motions to dismiss the third prayer for relief for failure to state a claim (see below).

II. DEFENCES
1. The plaintiff admitted that she set a bounty on another player (exhibit A), which is incitement according to the Saviour Act (link). When a bounty is set on someone, all online players receive a message asking them to kill the target in exchange for money. The message combined with the monetary reward are factors that encourage someone to murder the target. As the direct cause of this is the person who set the bounty, the bounty setter is encouraging all online players to commit murder, regardless of whether or not the players intend to follow through on it. The law is simple, stating only the following: "Incitement is... The attempt to coax or encourage someone to break the law". Taelor not only merely attempted to encourage every online player to murder Thunder_Hassan, but she actually did indeed encourage them via a monetary reward. One player, Nexalin, came to collect the bounty (exhibit B) indicating that it did encourage murder, beyond the requirement of "attempted." Taelor was charged for incitement 1st offense for this action and fined $100 appropriately.
2. When setting a bounty on another person, it makes that player, quite literally, a target. All cash-hungry criminals on the server are looking for their mark, thus placing the victim in grave danger of being assassinated. The threat of assassination and being hunted like prey is quite dangerous, as any reasonable person would believe. The Violent Offenses Act (link) states that assault may consist of "putting [a player] in a place of danger". As we have established that having an active bounty on someone puts them in a place of danger, Taelor committed assault as her setting the bounty created a place of danger in which Thunder_Hassan entered. This is further evidenced by the fact someone tried to indeed kill him, making the threat only more and more real. In the first segment of exhibit B, we see Nexalin enter the room and try to kill the bountied player. Nexalin will also testify that he tried to kill Thunder_Hassan because of the bounty placed upon him. Taelor was charged for assault for this action and fined $100 appropriately, as well as served a jail sentence of five minutes. Due to an overpopulated prison, the plaintiff served her sentence in cuffs on the prison bus at the police station. The wanted point was removed after the sentence was served.
3. Taelor, as observed in exhibit B, did not initially cooperate with imprisonment, hiding in the basement of her residential plot. She was advised to come out by officers at the scene, but she failed to comply in a timely manner. She was charged with obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. Since this was the first offense on each, she was verbally warned for the obstruction of justice as per the Savior Act, and fined $100 for resisting arrest as per the Miscellaneous Offenses Act (link).
4. In total, for all four charges, Taelor's fines added up to $300 total as alleged as well as five minutes in jail plus reasonable detention time for transportation and processing of the suspect. Therefore none of the time served nor the fines incurred were unreasonable, and all punishments were executed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

IV. WITNESSES
1. JediAJMan
2. Nexalin

V. MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that a complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Your honor, the emotional damages prayer for relief failed to state a claim and therefore must be dismissed. There is nothing to substantiate the necessity for emotional damages in this case nor have any of the elements of infliction of emotional distress been alleged or backed in any shape or form.

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 18th day of October 2023

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The plaintiff may respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[Taelor]

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiff oppose to the motion to dismiss on the grounds of:

1. The Plaintiff was in "detainment" in the prison bus, for an undisclosed amount of time. There was no cell sign that said how long she would be there, she couldn't move around or mine. And, originally, they (the police officer) said she would be detained "Until a cell opens up". This, alone, caused emotional distress as the plaintiff didn't know how long they were being jailed.

2. According to The Saviour Act, the first offense of incitement is a fine; not jail time. This has tainted the plaintiff's record as well.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

According to The Saviour Act, the first offense of incitement is a fine; not jail time. This has tainted the plaintiff's record as well.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. Assault carries 5 minutes of jail time, and the plaintiff was not jailed for incitement. Therefore, this claim is irrelevant and grossly misleading.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

And, originally, they (the police officer) said she would be detained "Until a cell opens up"

Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay. The plaintiff is using the out-of-court statements of another person to prove the truth of the matter asserted and therefore the comment falls under hearsay. I motion to strike this comment from the record.

 

[Taelor]

Your honor, the plaintiff is requesting to drop this case as we have reached a settlement out of court.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the plaintiff is requesting to drop this case as we have reached a settlement out of court.

Your honor, no settlement was reached.

 

[Taelor]

Let me rephrase: The plaintiff is dropping this case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the defense would like to countersue for filing a frivolous case that was clearly filed with malicious intentions. Further, the defense seeks $2,500 in legal fees for the waste of the Department's time in fighting this pivotal case only for the plaintiff to drop it as a result of an illicit "settlement" made by Department of Justice leadership.

The Secretary of Justice has illicitly deleted the arrest record of Taelor without a court order directing such, and supposedly this deletion was part of a deal struck between Taelor and Technofied as "private citizens." The Secretary, however, used his powers as a public servant to fulfill the terms of a private settlement, interfering with this case. Therefore the settlement is illicit and gives grounds for this countersuit to proceed.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the issue was rectified and the defense agrees to drop the matter. The countersuit is waived.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Could both parties clarify what they would want to happen?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Could both parties clarify what they would want to happen?

For the lawsuit to be dismissed with prejudice, your honor.

 

[Taelor]

I agree with the defendant your honor.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

This case is dismissed with prejudice.