Lawsuit: Adjourned Vroomba v. Department of Justice [2021] FCR 51

SpriteTropical

SpriteTropical

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
byeSprite
byeSprite
attorney
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
210
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vroomba
(byeSprite representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

My client, Vroomba, was illegally and wrongfully arrested by the Department of Justice for trespassing.

I. PARTIES
1. Vroomba
2. byeSprite (representing Plaintiff)
3. Department of Justice

1619393024695.png

II. FACTS
1. My client was along the stairs leading to the area behind the glass (Evidence 1.1);
2. My client was arrested for "trespassing";
3. The requirements set out by the SLATT Act require a minimum of two warnings or one sign against trespassing.
4. There is a hologram that says not to trespass, however holograms are not signs. An example of a sign will be given in Evidence 2.1;
5. My client wasn't even trespassing in the first place per the evidence given in the criminal record (Evidence 1.1)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vroomba did not recive two warnings;
2. At the time of the arrest, there was no sign stating to not trespass (Evidence 3.1);
3. And as such my client was wrongfully jailed for trespassing.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $20 in reimbursement for the fine associated with the SLATT Act, which was never violated.
2. $100 in reimbursement for the jail time associated with the SLATT Act, which was never violated.
3. $150 in legal fees.

V. Evidence
1619394579102.png
1619394616786.png
**Note the minecraft:wall_signs, minecraft:signs, minecraft:eek:ak_wall_sign identifying this as a SIGN.
1619394712615.png
**Note the lack of anything identifying this as a sign from the F3 Menu.**
1619394790793.png
1619394802354.png
1619394841271.png
1619394863734.png


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 25th day of April 2021
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Vroomba
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff argues that a hologram isn't a sign due to gameplay limitations due to a hologram not being a physical object therefore not showing up under F3, however the only other functional difference is that they can be seen through walls and their appearance
2. The formal definition of a sign is "a notice that is publicly displayed giving information or instructions in a written or symbolic form." a hologram perfectly fits this definition and works just as well as a wooden one conveying that you shouldn't trespass in this area
3. The plaintiff was provably in an area which can be seen through walls that you shouldn't be in through their own evidence
...


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 twenty-fifth day of April 2021
 
Last edited:
Your honor the defense has spoken out of turn
 
I appreciate the plaintiff's objection, but it is overruled. I am happy to accept the submission made prior to summons.

As such we shall continue. I would invite the plaintiff to make any responses to the motion to dismiss at their earliest convenience. If there is no desire to make a response, please could you inform the court of this.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff:
Vroomba (byeSprite representing)

v.

Defendant:
Department of Justice


Case no: Case No. 04-2021-26

I. ANSWER TO DEFENDANT

The defendant's argument lies solely based on real life factors. The real-world definition of a sign is ultimately irrelevant in this case as we're not arguing something about the real world-- we're here to argue about Minecraft. We're not here to argue functionality; we're here to argue that a hologram isn't a sign, and as such fails to fulfill the requirements set by the SLATT Act. The argument in the defendant's motion to dismiss would have some merit if there weren't signs in Minecraft; however there are indeed signs in Minecraft and as such the SLATT Act clearly only applies to those signs as it specifically mentions them, and mentions nothing about holograms.

S1.3 stated by the defense is a complete and utter nonsense in all sense of the word. Vroomba was clearly on the staircase, behind the hologram (relative to entering the bank vault area). If the Department of Justice wants being on the staircase to count as trespassing, why doesn't the Department of Justice put a sign before entering the staircase that clearly says that you can't trespass on the staircase? Was my client that was simply sitting on the staircase posing some grand threat the the Government that they had to be wrongly and illegally jailed? Even if the Judge fails to see the merit in the argument regarding the difference between signs and holograms, it is beyond evident that my client wasn't trespassing and had no intent to do such.

II. EDIT TO SECTION IV IN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

If the Judge allows it, I would like to rectify a mistake in my original complaint filing and ask for the following clause to be added to Section IV of the original civil complaint:

4. A court order that the Department of Justice will expunge the trespassing charge from Vroomba's criminal record.


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 27th of April, 2021
 
My apologies for the delay - it's been quite busy irl however I'd like to open up the next stage of the trial. I would invite the plaintiff to present any further evidence they may have, followed by a similar submission from the defendant.

I would kindly ask that these responses are made within 72 hours however if longer is needed please do let me know.
 
Objection, there is still a standing motion to dismiss your honor
 
bubbarc said:
Objection, there is still a standing motion to dismiss your honor
Click to expand...
My apologies!! I had lost track of proceedings - thank you for reminding me.

That said, the motion made by the defence is dismissed. The matter in issue appears to be one of definitional importance and thus something I feel deserves the court's attention. The case will proceed per my earlier message.
 
I have no further evidence outside of the re-iteration that my client was on the staircase, and as such was clearly not trespassing. Furthermore, given the fact that the hologram isn't a sign adds more to Vroomba's trespassing charge being illegitimate.
 
your honor the defense has no more evidence
 
Due to there being no further evidence, I am prepared to sum up on what is before the court as of present.

Verdict



The first issue this case raised was the definition of a sign. It is of my opinion that the word 'sign', found in SLATT, is reference to a physical entity that conveys information to an observer whether through pictorial or textual medium. Applying this definition, I would find that the 'No trespassing' hologram satisfies the definition of a sign and thus the prosecution's reliance on this is justified.

With regard to the actual act of trespassing, from the evidence provided I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. While a picture only provides a snapshot, the evidence relied upon shows Vroomba on the stairs. It is impossible to tell if Vroomba had only just gone down the stairs and, having seen the sign, was about to return upstairs. The purpose of the 'No trespassing' sign is for potential trespassers to see the warning, and turn back. Much like seeing a "Danger - high voltage" sign: it would be useless if you only saw the sign as 345,000 volts were running through you.

It is therefore my opinion that being present only at the rear of the room in which the sign is displayed, is not sufficient for trespass to have been committed. The hologram sign is a warning not to step into the room with the vault. I agree with the defence that, should the room where the hologram sign is present be intended as a sterile area, the sign should be moved to the top of the stairs.

As such, I order the following:
- $20 in reimbursement for the fine associated with the SLATT Act, which was never violated, paid by the DoJ.
- $100 in reimbursement for the jail time associated with the SLATT Act, which was never violated, paid by the DoJ.
- $150 in legal fees, paid by the DoJ.

Regarding the expungement request - I would refer the defence to the information section regarding expungements in the court thread.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top