Lawsuit: Adjourned Thomoray v. Bunghungalow [2021] FCR 13

Thomo01

Citizen
Thomoray
Thomoray
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
71
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


(Thomoray)
Plaintiff

v.

(Bunghungalow)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: I was away from DC for around 2 month. Before i left i boarded my HQ / Store entrances in order to stop anyone from getting inside! Although the defendant illegally trespassed inside a blocked building then made his own way down to the employee area. The defendant then continued to sell his products into my "STAFF ONLY" chests, i am yet to gather proof that the specific room says "No Trespassing" although once i gain access to it i am sure to give you the evidence. - (Adding on) I believe the defendant must have either glitched through the glass or used ender pearls to get inside!

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. (BubbaRC)
2. ...

II. FACTS
1. (I was away for 2 months.)
2. Store was blocked
3. There are signs specifically saying "NO TRESPASSING"
4. The defendant continued knowing far well what he was doing,
...

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. (Trespassing)
2. Selling items into employee only chests (Do not know the name of the correct law)
3. Possibly glitching

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. (All money to be returned)
2. All items that was sold to be seized
3. ...
...

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

DATED: 06/02/2021
granted.png

blocked.png

sold.png

sodl 2.png
 
1612181371430.png


IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case Thomoray v Bunghungalow. Failure to appear within 24 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.​
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE



Thomoray
Plaintiff

v.

Bunghungalow (LilDigiVert Representing)
Defendant

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

Your honor,

We would like to request for an extension of an additional 12 hours (10:10 PM EST on February 8th 2021) in order to prepare our legal case. We will also be examining the Plaintiff's evidence and gathering our own during this time. I'm also working all day IRL, so my availability it going to be in short spans.

DATED:
This 7th of February 2021.
 
Given IRL commitments, I will grant the requested extension. The deadline for response is now 22:10 EST on 8th February 2021. Thank you for your quick response.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DEFENSE & MOTION TO DISMISS



Thomoray
Plaintiff

v.

Bunghungalow (LilDigiVert Representing)
Defendant


1612750800015.png

Answer to Complaint

1. Acknowledge the fact that Thomoray was inactive for two (2) months.
2. Deny any allegation of trespassing, glitching, or any form of illegal entry into Thomoray's buildings.
3. Deny any allegation of selling in "staff-only" chests.

Answer to the Written Statement

1. This case should be dismissed on face. The Statute of Limitations Act S3-1-(a) outright renders this case against my client as invalid noting the alleged "crime" the Plaintiff is claiming relief for. The Plaintiff's own evidence supports this argument, as it indicates that transactions were made 18 days prior to the lawsuit.
Corporate entities and players must be charged for crimes within a period of 2 weeks of when the crime happened.
2. This case should be dismissed on face. The "parties" section of the Plaintiff's written statement does not include Bunghungalow or Thomoray. BubbaRC is the only listed party associated with this lawsuit. BubbaRC himself denies any involvement in this case, and rejects the premise of this lawsuit.
1612752599887.png
3. Bunghungalow staunchly denies selling to the location pictured in the Plaintiff's evidence entirely. Upon checking his book of saved coordinates, Bunghungalow legally sold iron to Thomoray's chest shops at a rented property owned by Nacholebraa (who acknowledges that the Plaintiff rented property from them). The building pictured is owned by Vanquish_AP (I can provide evidence for this if necessary). The Plaintiff does not provide evidence of any such barriers or doors blocking the chest shop Bunghungalow sold his iron to, but rather a barrier to his HQ.


1612757653495.png

1612756121994.png
4. This case should be dismissed on face. Section 3 of "Claims for Relief" alleges that Bunghungalow violate server rules by using exploits to break into his property. This is a matter that should be handled by the staff team and not the government or judiciary of Redmont.

5. The Plaintiff does not specify an amount of money that needs to be returned. A lack of evidence showing the profit made, or even the sell price listed in the chest shop makes it impossible to assess the damages to the Plaintiff to begin with. Any attempt to provide one now without concrete proof should be met with skepticism, as the Plaintiff can just assert any number and/or edit the price on their chest shop.

6. The Plaintiff does not offer a timeline or evidence of when his store (in Nacholebraa's building) was blocked off. The cobblestone placed in front of the building (which Bunghungalow did not sell in) may have been placed minutes before the filing of this lawsuit and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.
 

Attachments

  • 1612755903654.png
    1612755903654.png
    97.5 KB · Views: 88
1612181371430.png



IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
The Court accepts the interpretation presented by the defence that the Statute of Limitations Act prevents prosecution for criminal acts two weeks or after they have occurred. The Court finds that the claim of fraud (selling to chest shops dishonestly) falls under the protection of this Act. However, in following the definition of trespass accepted in other common law jurisdictions, such an act is a civil offence and therefore does not receive the same protection from the aforementioned Act.

The claim of exploits is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to assess and would fall to be a staff matter.

As such, this case will continue solely on the claim of trespass against the defendant. I would ask the plaintiff to clarify the alleged parties in this case.
Both parties may now provide any additional evidence. If either party does not have any additional evidence to share, they may reply noting that they do not have anything else to share. These statements can refer to arguments presented by the respective opposition.

I would first ask the plaintiff to respond, with a subsequent response from the defendant. In the effort of keeping proceedings moving, I would kindly ask any responses to be made without unnecessary delay - preferably within 36 hours.
 
Before i get started i would like to state that no grudges are to be held against the defendant nor his / her lawyer!

Response to the defendant / lawyer:

1)

Most of my buildings were blocked off before i left for my 2 month break. Vanquish_ap can indeed confirm that the building was blocked before i left as she bought the building off me. Now i do apologise due to me getting the wrong building but i can also confirm that the building that Bunghungalow sold his products to was under construction and had a sign saying "Under Construction" i do not have any screenshots to provide this evidence but Nacholebraa could possibly confirm although that is not for definite due to the fact the building is currently owned by him!

2)
The sell prices in all my buildings have been the same for months and i can assure you that Zab can confirm this! Zab owns 30% of my company therefore he has access into all my financial logging and can confirm the prices to the products.

3)
Buildings / Rooms there are specifically made for ThomoInc. company employees ALWAYS have signs either next to the door or on the chests specifying "Staff Only"

4)
I am not accusing Bunghungalow for exploits in any way shape or form, it was just a though considering it was blocked off and there was no possible entry.

5)
Yes the sales were 18 days ago as stated in the evidence! I have not gotten round to this due to my absence, although coming back and seeing thousands possibly 10s of thousands missing from my balance. My mistake.

6)
I would like to apologise for including BubbaRC into the party, i misread and got mixed up in some things.

7)
I have recently done some calculations and found over 36 stacks of iron, i usually sell iron for $8.5/1 which rounds up close to $15,000 that has been took out my balance and left me broke! I had big plans for when i come back and now i can not move forward with them.

8)
The building in which he entered was rented by myself from Nacholebraa after he kindly asked me if i wanted to rent! I proceeded to furnish the place but was no where near complete, all buildings i own that have not been complete always have a sign saying "No Trespassing" or "Under Construction" letting the person who is wanting to enter know they can not enter, it is common sense not to enter and especially purchase items from a "Under Construction" signed building. I understand this is Minecraft but if it was real life i don't think someone would want you on their property trying to purchase items when they are trying too construct.

/ /

Other than that i have nothing else to say about the defendant regarding trespassing allegations!
 
(Of course, no hard feelings or anything we all slimes still)

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DEFENSE



Thomoray
Plaintiff

v.

Bunghungalow (LilDigiVert Representing)
Defendant

1) There is no evidence presented for any "Do not enter" or "under construction signs" at Nacholebraa's building, where the transactions were made.

2) This is no longer relevant to the case.
The Court accepts the interpretation presented by the defence that the Statute of Limitations Act prevents prosecution for criminal acts two weeks or after they have occurred. The Court finds that the claim of fraud (selling to chest shops dishonestly) falls under the protection of this Act.

3) This is no longer relevant to the case.
The Court accepts the interpretation presented by the defence that the Statute of Limitations Act prevents prosecution for criminal acts two weeks or after they have occurred. The Court finds that the claim of fraud (selling to chest shops dishonestly) falls under the protection of this Act.

4) Plaintiff concedes that buildings were blocked off, and it would be near impossible to enter the building. As such, all analytical evidence indicates that the only way to trespass would be to use glitches or exploits, which the Court made clear is a staff matter. Additionally, there was no additional evidence presented before the Plaintiff stated that
Other than that i have nothing else to say about the defendant regarding trespassing allegations!

5) This is no longer relevant to the case.
The Court accepts the interpretation presented by the defence that the Statute of Limitations Act prevents prosecution for criminal acts two weeks or after they have occurred. The Court finds that the claim of fraud (selling to chest shops dishonestly) falls under the protection of this Act.

6) The defendant accepts your apology for including BubbaRC in the party section.

7) This is no longer relevant to the case.
The Court accepts the interpretation presented by the defence that the Statute of Limitations Act prevents prosecution for criminal acts two weeks or after they have occurred. The Court finds that the claim of fraud (selling to chest shops dishonestly) falls under the protection of this Act.

8) There is no evidence presented for any "Do not enter" or "under construction signs" at Nacholebraa's building, where the transactions were made.

9) The Plaintiff has argued that they do not have any further arguments to make regarding the allegation of trespassing. Seeing that no new evidence was shared to indicate any form of trespassing by my client, we have nothing more to add outside of the aforementioned defenses to the Plaintiff's rebuttal.
 

Verdict

In an effort to prevent undue delay, I will provide a verdict with the information currently presented before the court as the statements seem to have come to a natural conclusion.

Given the lack of evidence that the plaintiff sold to chests in locations that were marked "No entry" or similar, the required standard of proof to prove the facts in issue has not been met. I find in favour of the defendant. I thank both parties for their quick responses throughout the course of these proceedings.

 
Back
Top