Lawsuit: Adjourned xerxesmc v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 101

Status
Not open for further replies.

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xerxesmc (nnmc Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF: The Department of Construction and Transportation is unconstitutionally trying to evict the Plaintiff from his commercial market stall properties. The court must intervene to stop this miscarriage of justice.

We seek an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION against xerxesmc being evicted from any of his 4 market stalls, until this lawsuit is adjourned or dismissed. The reason is that it would cause irreversible harm to the plaintiff's business if he were to lose these market stalls even temporarily, including the possibility of losing out on sales to customers. The Defendant has already threatened to evict the plaintiff, and if this injunction is not granted, then eviction is likely to happen. Furthermore, the Defendant will face little to no harm if this injunction is granted, because it will not hurt the Commonwealth if they are unable to evict merely 2 market stalls for the short duration of this lawsuit.

I. PARTIES
1. xerxesmc (Plaintiff)
2. Mhad (Secretary of Construction and Transportation)
3. HugeBob (Person who delivered the warning of possible eviction)

II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff owns 4 market stalls in the Commercial Business District.
2. Secretary Mhad on September 18th established a new policy against owning more than 2 stalls in the CBD. Although this policy once existed a while back, it was not a policy in effect until it was once more established on September 18th. This is all affirmed by the conversation seen in Evidence Photo #1
3. HugeBob on September 18th then issued a warning to xerxesmc that 2 of his 4 stalls would be evicted at random to comply with this new policy. This warning is seen in Evidence Photo #2.
3. Eviction, in this situation, is unconstitutional and illegal as explained in the Claims for Relief section.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Ex Post Facto Act 2020 says that citizens cannot be subject to punishment for actions committed before the criminalization of that action. Since the Plaintiff acquired his 4 market stalls when it was legal to have that many market stalls, the plaintiff has "grandfather rights" in this case to have 4 market stalls. This is because the plaintiff can not be punished with eviction for having bought 4 market stalls when it was legal to do so, because of the Ex Post Facto Act 2020.
2. This is reinforced by the previous actions of the DCT. In the July 2021 eviction case against Nacho, Nacho had over 20 commercial plots and at the time the rule was that you could have a max of 20 commercial plots. Nacho did have "grandfather rights" to avoid that 20 maximum rule because he had more than 20 plots before the rule was implemented. Nacho was only successfully evicted because he bought further plots after the rule was implemented, thus losing his grandfather rights. This can all be seen in the "Additional Information" and "8- Ex Post Facto" sections of the eviction report seen at this link: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c-214-20jul2021.7649/
3. Section XIII of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants all citizens the right to equality before the law, including "equal protection" and "equal benefit" and without "unfair discrimination." If Nacho was allowed grandfather rights by the DCT, then the Plaintiff is entitled to receive that protection and benefit equally. Should the DCT be allowed to give those grandfather rights to Nacho, but not to the Plaintiff, that would be unfair discrimination violating Section XIII.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A permanent injunction against xerxesmc being evicted from any of his 4 market stalls, unless he waives his grandfather rights by buying an additional market stall
2. $2500 in legal fees

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

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 20th day of September 2021
 

Attachments

  • EvidencePhoto1.jpg
    EvidencePhoto1.jpg
    243.8 KB · Views: 71
  • evidencePhoto2.jpg
    evidencePhoto2.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 69
  • consentOfRep.png
    consentOfRep.png
    20.8 KB · Views: 68

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer

PwFVDhr.png





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


The Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby orders that the Department of Construction and Transportation refrain from evicting the market stall of Xerxesmc until the conclusion of the lawsuit.​
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer

PwFVDhr.png





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 Xerexesmc (nnmc representing) v. the Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS


xerxesmc (nnmc Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff’s states that Ex Post Facto law applies to this situation. However, xerxesmc does not fit the criteria of Ex Post Facto infraction, which is the fundamental ground of this case. The grandfather clause was for players where they owned more than two market stalls. The original DCT and DEC policy was implemented December 5th, 2020. Xerxesmc did not join the server until April 17th, 2021. Xerxesmc did not have grandfather status.
2. Xerxesmc has not forfeited his 13th amendment. Just as other plot owners who have been evicted, and just as Nacho forfeited his grandfather status when he purchased his extra plots, xerxesmc is being treated the same. He has not lost his 13th amendment.
3. The plaintiff’s claims for relief have inaccuracies or they are irrelevant to supporting the case.

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 25 day of September 2021

EDIT: Changed the date
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

This motion to dismiss should not be granted.

The defendant claims that it is inaccurate to say that Ex Post Facto applies in this situation. However, that is a matter that is debatable and up for interpretation, which is why this lawsuit was filed so that the court could decide on the correct interpretation. The plaintiff is likely to be protected by Ex Post Facto, seeing that in recent months the DCT had allowed the policy to lapse and it was essentially forgotten. It was so forgotten that the DCT Secretary had to go on a fishing expedition to find the original policy, and the policy had to be re-posted by the DEC on the forums. This shows that de facto and de jure the Commonwealth had allowed the policy to lapse and fall out of place, until very recently. At that point, xerxesmc was entitled to grandfather rights.

There is no inaccuracy here, but rather a situation that is up for debate before this court. The court should allow this debate to occur instead of dismissing the case out of hand

Furthermore, the defendant claims that the plaintiff is not being treated any differently. Again, this is a matter up for debate since the plaintiff had 4 market stalls, then the government suddenly became highly interested in enforcing this policy after having been dormant for months, and then decided they wanted to evict the plaintiff. This is quite different from how Nacho was treated when he got grandfather rights instead of being evicted for owning a large amount of plots before a plot limit was issued.

Your Honor, there are no valid grounds for dismissal here. I ask that the court reject this motion to dismiss.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
The Court hereby rejects the motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

◘ The Court sees the fact that the policy was in effect at the time to be a matter of interpretation

◘ The Court further believes that the circumstances surrounding the example given by the Defendant were different than the circumstances surrounding this case, with the bill being passed and enforced after a clear point and the bill specifically stating how grandfather rights would be handled

◘ The Court does not see any of the claims for relief as inaccurate or pointless

With that being said the Plaintiff may proceed with their opening statement
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
If the plaintiff doesn't have their opening statement in within 48 hours we will proceed without it
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
OPENING STATEMENT

The question before this court is whether or not the 2 market stall limit could reasonably be considered to be a policy that has continuously been in effect since being first issued in December 2020. It is evident that this is NOT the case.

DCT Secretary Mhad himself couldn’t even remember if this policy existed. As seen in evidence photo 1, he was willing to pay $300 to anyone who could provide him proof that this policy ever existed. If the DCT Secretary can’t remember if a policy exists, how is it reasonable to say that the policy was in effect? While the policy may have been in effect when issued back in 2020, it was so unenforced, hidden, and barely publicized in recent months. This sort of secret, hidden policy is not fair to citizens, and it cannot be expected that such a policy is enforceable if no one knows about it. In very recent days, the DCT has rediscovered this policy and begun enforcing it again; however, the Plaintiff bought his stalls at the time that the policy was unknown. Thus, this Court should afford the Plaintiff grandfather rights to protect him from a policy that was entirely unknown at the time the stalls were purchased.

The government had let this policy be dormant and dead for months, until recently when they decided to unjustly seek the eviction of the Plaintiff under this allegedly extant policy. The Government posted this policy on the forums on Sept 21 2021 (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/market-stalls.9087/) in an effort to support their false claim that the policy has always been in effect. But if they really had to make a new forum post for the policy, that shows that the Government is aware that the policy was largely unknown to the public. If the Government knows that, then it is unreasonable for them to expect that people will follow a policy that no one was made aware of. Of course, now that the policy has been clearly publicized on 9/21, anyone who buys a market stall now should be subject to the policy. But citizens like the Plaintiff should be granted grandfather rights since at the time of their stall purchase, the policy was highly hidden and thus unenforceable.

In conclusion, the Government is trying to enforce a policy that (at the time) nobody, even the DCT Secretary, knew with certainty existed. The court should grant the prayer for a permanent injunction, to protect against an unreasonable seizure of property which would go against the Constitutional Rights of the plaintiff. Furthermore, given that previous citizens have been afforded grandfather rights in similar situations, it makes sense to grant equal protection under the law to the plaintiff
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
The defendant may proceed with their opening statement
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


xerxesmc (nnmc Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

The basis of the plaintiffs argument resides in believing that someone forgetting a policy/law/ect means said law or policy does not exist and is not enforceable. This is a notion that the courts cannot side with. This would be similar to a police officer, a government employee, forgetting that drug trafficking of mushrooms is illegal. Does this mean that the trafficking of mushrooms is legal? No, because it has been publicly documented (see evidence 1). While the DCT of the previous administrations were laxed about the policy, the question of “Was the policy revoked?” is a no. The DCT secretary or congress never changed that department policy meaning the policy was still in effect. The policy was publically available and was never revoked meaning the government had every right to evict xerxesmc from his plot. Let me repeat, just because someone forgets a law or policy does not mean the policy or law is rescinded. In Case No. 09-2021-01 the courts upheld that in an instance where the President is contrary to law, their actions are not legally binding or enforceable. The courts agreed to this notion and the same notion should apply to this case.

The plaintiff also argues that allowing a permanent injunction the courts will be protecting their 13th amendment. This could not be further from the truth. The plaintiff claims that because grandfather status was granted to other players, an eviction is unfair treatment under the law. Players are evicted all the time by the DCT, some evictions include having too many of a certain plot. If the courts allow a permanent injunction, they will be giving xerxesmc away to break DCT policy, without any grandfather protections. Permanent is permanent. This would provide Costco Wholesale (one of the richest companies in Redmont) an unfair, competitive advantage and would allow an unfair treatment under law.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
I would like to thank both parties for their submissions, does either party have any additional evidence or witnesses?
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
The plaintiff would not like to call any witnesses.
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
The State would not like to call any witnesses.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
I would like to thank both parties for their swift responses, now the Plaintiff may proceed with their closing statement with the Defendant following
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
CLOSING STATEMENT

I’d like to use my closing statement to rebut some points made by the defendant in their opening statement.

someone forgetting a policy/law/ect means said law or policy does not exist and is not enforceable
The plaintiff isn’t the only person who didn’t know this policy existed. Even the DCT Secretary couldn’t say with certainty that the policy existed, and in fact, the DCT Secretary offered to pay money if someone could figure our if the policy exisred. If the DCT Secretary doesn’t know a policy exists, then it is ridiculous to expect ordinary citizens to follow such an unknown policy.

The policy was publically available
It was not publicly available, or if it was, it was so barely publicized to the point where you couldn’t reasonably say it was public knowledge. The government implicitly admitted this lack of publicity, when they decided to make a new forum post and a Discord announcement to publicize the policy. Why did the government do all of that? Because they knew that nobody knew this policy even existed.

In Case No. 09-2021-01 the courts upheld that in an instance where the President is contrary to law, their actions are not legally binding or enforceable.
I don’t see how this precedent applies here, given that the President is not involved in this matter.

If the courts allow a permanent injunction, they will be giving xerxesmc away to break DCT policy, without any grandfather protections. Permanent is permanent. This would provide Costco Wholesale (one of the richest companies in Redmont) an unfair, competitive advantage and would allow an unfair treatment under law.
This is a ridiculous exaggeration of what the plaintiff is seeking. All the plaintiff is seeking is a permanent injunction against the eviction of only these 4 specific market stalls, not all of plaintiff’s properties. Furthermore, the requested injunction includes a provision that the grandfather rights and injunction will be voided if the plaintiff buys more market stalls than they currently have.

In conclusion, based on the arguments made in the initial filing and the opening statement, the plaintiff’s permanent injunction request should be granted. The plaintiff should also receive $2500 in legal fees to cover the cost of their lawyer.

The plaintiff rests.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
Your Honor, it has been nearly 48 hours since I posted my closing statement, and the defendant has not made any indication of when their closing statement can be expected. Perhaps imposing a deadline for the defendant’s closing statement would be beneficial in keeping these proceedings moving along.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
Very well, the defendant hereby has 48 hours to get their closing statement in or I will move on to a verdict without it.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
Due to the forums going down for a few hours I shall be granting the plaintiff a 12 hour extension
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Judge
Public Affairs Department
Donator
RBA
JoeGamer
JoeGamer
judge
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


xerxesmc (nnmc Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

In this case, the plaintiff has failed to prove why Secretary Mhad forgetting where a policy is located constitutes a department revoking a policy. The plaintiff has failed to prove that why something being hard to find constitutes a policy not going in effect. There is plenty of Congressional Legislation that is hard to find, has changed names, or exists but the name is hard to recall. Does the court throw those bills out too? No, because they were passed, and even though they can be hard to find, were voted on, and signed into law. Similarly, the early DCT created policy, and even though hard to find, has not revoked the policy, meaning it’s still in effect (for the courts record, here is the original announcement Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities).

It’s clear that we cannot void legislation, policy, etc based on someone forgetting or being hard to find. Setting the precedent will lead to potential “forgetful” or “can’t find” cases. These policies are set and are revoked when the appropriate department or office declares them revoked. Until then these policies remain intact, and the Plaintiff clearly broke the policy that was legally in place by the DCT.

With that, the State rest.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
I would like to apologize for the delay on the verdict, I've had a lot going on as of late, the verdict will be in within 48 hours.
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer

Verdict


I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The State had attempted to illegally evict the market stalls belonging to the Plaintiff's company
2. The State had forgotten about a policy put into effect last year and only recently began enforcing it again, meaning they were owed Grandfather Rights from eviction due to Ex Post Facto, and was owed equal protection under law to Nacholebraa, who was granted Grandfather Rights for having over 20 commercial plots before a law was passed making it illegal

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The State had the full right to evict the Plaintiff and they did not qualify for Grandfather Rights due to the policy still having been in effect
2. Just because a policy had been forgotten about doesn't mean it wasn't still in effect

III. THE COURT OPINION
The Court believes that while both parties bring up good points, the policy was in effect due to being formally announced by the Department in question and never having had any affirmation that it was no longer in effect, however the department had violated a previous court order by failing to put it onto the forums within a reasonable timeframe, in Case No. 02-2021-01-02 (click here) the Department was ordered to put all policy on the forums within a reasonable timeframe, which they had failed to do with it having only been in a formal announcement from last year, it is unreasonable to expect players to remember a policy from that long ago if there had been no hints that it was being enforced and it is unreasonable to expect the average citizen to remember something from that long ago that even the secretary of the department had forgotten about, with that in mind the courts feel that the Plaintiff does qualify for limited Grandfather Rights, however they had recently put it back onto the forums thus they are no longer in breach of the order.

IV. DECISION
The court hereby orders:
1: The Department of Construction and Transportation pay the Plaintiff $1,500 in legal fees
2: The Court grants an injunction that the Plaintiff's market stalls not be evicted, with the caveat that they may not re-rent more than two of the plots

I would like to thank both parties for their time, this case is hereby adjourned in favor of the Plaintiff.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top