- Joined
- Jul 5, 2021
- Messages
- 322
- Thread Author
- #1
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
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