Lawsuit: Adjourned Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 11

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Yeet_Boy (Solid Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On July 21, 2022, the Plaintiff was informed by DCT Secretary deadwax that he is not to rent the food truck beyond the date of 7/30, since the DCT was going to move the truck.

I. PARTIES
1. Yeet_Boy
2. Department of Construction and Transportation

II. Facts
1. The Plaintiff bought the rights to rent the food truck from OverlordofPeonys for $10,000.
2. The Defendant has informed the Plaintiff that he cannot rent the truck past the date of 7/30.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DCT does not have the power of Eminent Domain.
2. It follows thereafter that the DCT is violating Clause XV of Section IV of the Constitution: “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
3. Even if it is found that this is not the use of Eminent Domain, the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements to be evicted as laid out in the Jurisdiction Act.
4. Even if the Plaintiff is found to meet the requirements of eviction, it is clear in the evidence that this is not the reason the DCT is using to evict them (see Exhibits B and C)

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The DCT does not take the food truck
2. $1000 in punitive damages.
3. $800 in legal fees.

Evidence:
1. Conversation between Plaintiff and DCT Secretary deadwax [Exhibit A]
2. Conversation between MilkCrack and Deadwax [Exhibits B and C in order]

Additionally, we would like to request an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION to prevent the DCT from seizing the food truck/evicting the tenant as this case is specifically about the legality of the DCT seizing this property/evicting the tenant.

Finally, we would like to inform the court that this filing is slightly different from FCR 55 since new evidence has been discovered between the original filing and this one.

Consent to Represent:

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of the Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 11

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[drew_hall]

In regards to the injunction filed, the court will be granting the request. The DCT is not to seize the disputed property during the duration of this case.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Yeet_Boy
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The DCT is not exercising Eminent Domain, as Eminent Domain is the seizing of private property to convert into public use. This is a rental property and is not the private property of the Plaintiff.
2. The notice was a notice to not rent past July 30th was posted on July 21st, a whole 9 days before the given deadline. Clause XV, Section VI in the Constitution does not apply here as this is not a seizure and this is not unreasonable. This is no different than a renter giving a deadline to leave the property due to not renewing the rental contract.
3. The Plaintiff did not pay the Government for the Rental Property and had paid OverlordofPeonys for their rights to use the property, and as such, the Government has no duty to give a refund to the Plaintiff for the Rental Property.
4. The Government is not responsible for how much an individual pays for rental rights of a Public Rental Space. That is a private business transaction between the Plaintiff and OverlordofPeonys, not between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
5. It seems that the Plaintiff was under the impression that he could rent the food truck indefinitely. This, however, is not the case. The Plaintiff should sue OverlordOfPeonys and not the Government. The Plaintiff should have been informed by OverlordOfPeonys that he was purchasing OverlordOfPeonys’ rental time and not his own. This failure to communicate is not the fault of the Government, but rather is the fault of OverlordOfPeonys.
6. The Defendant already promised the food truck to someone else as a prize for the Food Truck Race Event. The Defendant is within its rights to not renew a rental contract. The Defendant is within its rights to move the food truck as it is their own property. This was not an eviction, this was the Government not renewing a rental contract.
7. As of July 30th, the Plaintiff violated the notice given by the DCT by renting the food truck past the 7/30 deadline. The Plaintiff has rented the property until 8/14. It is now an eviction, but solely due to that. Before this, it was not an eviction.
8. The Plaintiff has no cause for an emergency injunction and the Defendant is well within its rights to not want to renew the rental property and gave the Plaintiff 9 days notice. Even with this, the Plaintiff still violated the sign and wants an emergency injunction. This is will allow the Plaintiff to blatantly violate a 9 days warning not to rent past 7/30 and is attempting to use this lawsuit to get away with that. They have no actual justification for this emergency injunction.


Exhibit D (Taken on July 30th)

Act of Congress - Tenant Rights Act


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 30th day of July, 2022

 

[drew_hall]

Would the Plaintiff like to offer a rebuttal to this motion to dismiss?

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

In response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

1. According to the Tenant Vibes Act, "The Tenant … is afforded the same rights as the Landlord" and "When renting … that person is subsequently owning that area." Thus, although a rental property, the Tenant is to be treated as the owner of the region and is entitled to defend against seizure of the property/eviction in court.

2. The Defendant claims that because they gave 9-days notice for eviction, it is justified. This is a defense and not a reason to dismiss the case. For this reason, I will refrain from rebutting until our Opening Statements.

3. The Defendant mentions the payment to OverlordofPeonys and claims the Government has no duty to refund that payment. We do not dispute this, and this lawsuit never asked for such a refund.

4. Very similar to #3… this lawsuit is about the seizure of the property/eviction of the tenant, not the money paid to rent the space.

5. While of course indefinitely renting is never guaranteed, it is understood that having a rental sign is consent to a rental contract, and eviction by the DCT requires specific criteria to be met. Throughout this case we will show the DCT does not have the right to go through with this operation.

6. Refusing to renew a rental contract is quite literally an eviction. By definition, eviction is "expelling a tenant from a property." By not allowing the Plaintiff to continue renting, the Defendant is evicting the Plaintiff. Additionally, it is the Defendant's mistake for offering to give away a property they knew fully well was being disputed in court. This is certainly not a reason to dismiss the case.

Even if it is somehow decided that this does not qualify as an eviction, the Defendant left the rental sign in place, which is clearly an invitation to a continued rental contract. It would be similar to writing up and signing a contract, and saying, "If you sign this, you will receive X, but please don't sign it."

7. The Plaintiff did extend the contract, however this is not a reason to dismiss the case. It was extended on the grounds that a) a rental contract was available via the sign, b) there is an injunction in place allowing the Plaintiff to continue renting, and c) even if it were found that the Plaintiff was allowed to be evicted, a refund would be required under the Tenant Rights Act.

8. The Plaintiff has a cause for the emergency injunction: the Plaintiff wishes to continue using the legally rented food truck without being illegally evicted. It couldn't be more clear.

Due to the opinion delivered in FCR 55, I would like to emphasize these points:

The Plaintiff does not want to hold the Commonwealth accountable for a private transaction between OverlordofPeonys and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff does not expect a refund of $10,000 from the Commonwealth. The Plaintiff simply wants to continue renting the food truck they are legally renting.

We have opted not to refute the Defendant's second argument in the motion to dismiss at this time. While we are well prepared to do so, we recognize the importance of the Court Procedures and will not be refuting a defending argument that was placed in a Motion to Dismiss. This belongs in the Opening Statement, and that is where the Plaintiff will keep it.

Lastly, I left my laptop at work IRL so I will be using my phone until Monday. I apologize for any formatting/spelling errors that may arise from this.

Thank you for your time.

 

[drew_hall]

The Supreme Court has decided to reject the motion to dismiss filed by the Commonwealth.

The motion has failed to point out any frivolous aspect to the lawsuit and therefore the court has decided to let the case continue.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide the court with an opening statement.​

 

[drew_hall]

Additionally, the Supreme Court wishes to remind both parties of the option of an in-game trial, and if either should be interested to let that be known before moving to opening statements

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff would love to do an in-game trial. However, the Plaintiff's council (myself) is very busy for the next 2-3 weeks except for this weekend. So, if we can find a time for it this weekend, we would love to do that. Otherwise, it will have to stay on the forum.

 

[Admin23]

I will not be able to attend an in game trial.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

The Tenant Rights Act (Act of Congress - Tenant Rights Act) says,
4 - Public Renting
When a player is renting from the Government, they are entitled to the rights listed in this section:
(1) Tenants must be given 48 hours notice from the Government before they are evicted from a rental region, excluding a report made by a building inspector.
(2) Tenants must be given a full refund of the rent they have pre-paid if evicted.

While this certainly provides a timeline for how long it takes to evict a Tenant, and it provides a requirement that the Tenant be informed of the eviction, there is no clear requirement within this Act for when the Government is allowed to evict the Tenant.



The Jurisdiction Act (Act of Congress - Jurisdiction Act) says,
3 - DCT Oversight of Building Regulations
(1) The following rules shall hereby be defined as laws under the jurisdiction of the Court of DemocracyCraft and subject to enforcement by the Department of Construction and Transportation:
(a) Violation of Building Regulations
(b) Minimum Amenities Requirements
(c) Prohibited Items in Dwellings

These three subsections are the sole reasons by which a Government eviction is allowed, and according to this Act, these subsections are to be enforced by Building Inspectors (not the DCT secretary). Additionally, none of these subsections were violated. Thus, the Plaintiff is not to be evicted from the food truck.



Perhaps most importantly, we see in the Constitution, under Section III - The President & Cabinet, Government Departments & Offices, Department of Construction & Transportation: “The department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country's urban environments. The department oversees Constructor and Building Inspector employment. Additionally, the department is responsible for the administration of a DCT store and Post Offices.”

As clearly seen in the Constitution, the DCT is not given the power to evict the Government’s tenants, except by way of a Building Inspector, which is further laid out in the Jurisdiction Act. To allow the DCT to go through with this eviction would set the precedent that Government Departments are able to go far beyond the powers given to them by the Constitution – the core of Redmont’s legal system.



Additionally, the Rights of the Plaintiff are being violated. According to Section IV, Clause XV of the Constitution, “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” Although the Defendant claimed this not to be unreasonable, the sole purpose of this operation is to give the food truck to someone else (see Exhibits B and C), which is, quite frankly, one of the most unreasonable reasons I can think of. Giving such power to the DCT would allow them to take other renters’ homes, business establishments, and industrial areas for the benefit of other citizens who the DCT favors, which is a direct violation of Section IV, Clause XIII of the Constitution: “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination…”

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 1st day of August, 2022

 

[Admin23]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good morning, your Honor, opposing counsel.

I will be responding to opposing counsel’s opening statement by quoting each of his paragraphs and responding to them.


(Paragraph below the section of the Tenant Rights Act)

“While this certainly provides a timeline for how long it takes to evict a Tenant, and it provides a requirement that the Tenant be informed of the eviction, there is no clear requirement within this Act for when the Government is allowed to evict the Tenant.”

Yes. This is true. I’m not exactly sure why opposing counsel included this as it does not help the Plaintiff’s case.


(Paragraph below the section of the Jurisdiction Act)

“These three subsections are the sole reasons by which a Government eviction is allowed, and according to this Act, these subsections are to be enforced by Building Inspectors (not the DCT secretary). Additionally, none of these subsections were violated. Thus, the Plaintiff is not to be evicted from the food truck.”

Not wanting to renew a rental contract does not need to fill these requirements. Any entity is allowed to not want to renew a rental contract for whatever reason. Forcing the government into a rental contract (as the Plaintiff has done by renting the food truck past the Government’s time of consent, 7/30, see Exhibit D) would set the precedent that the courts can force people to agree to a rental contract without their consent. The sign placed by the DCT essentially says “I do not want to go into a rental contract with anyone after 7/30.” This is entirely acceptable by any person or entity to do. The Plaintiff violated that sign blatantly.


“Perhaps most importantly, we see in the Constitution, under Section III - The President & Cabinet, Government Departments & Offices, Department of Construction & Transportation: ‘The department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country's urban environments. The department oversees Constructor and Building Inspector employment. Additionally, the department is responsible for the administration of a DCT store and Post Offices.’

As clearly seen in the Constitution, the DCT is not given the power to evict the Government’s tenants, except by way of a Building Inspector, which is further laid out in the Jurisdiction Act. To allow the DCT to go through with this eviction would set the precedent that Government Departments are able to go far beyond the powers given to them by the Constitution – the core of Redmont’s legal system.”

In the Constitution, the DCT is charged with maintaining the urban environments and building in urban environments. I do not know what other entity would be in charge of maintaining government rental properties in urban areas. It surely wouldn’t be the Department of Health or the Department of Justice. No one else fits the bill. The DCT has inherited the role of being the landlord on behalf of the government in an urban environment due to this sentence in the Constitution:

“The department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country's urban environments.”

By inheriting the role of being the landlord on behalf of the government in an urban environment, they have inherited the right to not want to go into a rental contract with anyone, as they have exercised with the sign on the food truck.


“Additionally, the Rights of the Plaintiff are being violated. According to Section IV, Clause XV of the Constitution, ‘Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.’ Although the Defendant claimed this not to be unreasonable, the sole purpose of this operation is to give the food truck to someone else (see Exhibits B and C), which is, quite frankly, one of the most unreasonable reasons I can think of. Giving such power to the DCT would allow them to take other renters’ homes, business establishments, and industrial areas for the benefit of other citizens who the DCT favors, which is a direct violation of Section IV, Clause XIII of the Constitution: ‘Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination…’”

For the record, the Defense is alleging that this is not unreasonable and is not a search or a seizure, thus nullifying the argument using Section IV, Clause XV of the Constitution within this context. Opposing counsel is attempting to twist the words of the Defense.

Even if opposing counsel thinks this is unreasonable, the Food Truck Race Event is meant to keep Redmont fun and interactive. The Defendant gave the Plaintiff (and any other potential renters) 9 days notice to not participate in another rental contract with the food truck. This was to allow the Plaintiff to get his affairs in order and allow him to know that the Government does not want anyone to rent the property after 7/30. This is a massive amount of time to give as notice. The Plaintiff still elected to violate that and participate in a rental contract without the Government’s consent to do so.

No, this would not allow the DCT to “take other renters’ homes, business establishments, and industrial areas for the benefit of other citizens who the DCT favors.” The food truck is Government property. The DCT simply said that they did not want anyone to rent it past 7/30, meaning they did not want to enter into a rental contract with anyone for the food truck after 7/30. The reason for doing so is because of an event using government resources and government property to have fun. This is in no way, shape, or form taking someone’s property. This is simply the Government stating that it does not want to rent the food truck to anyone past 7/30. It is not illegal to not want to rent a property to anyone. There is nothing forcing the government to rent any Government property to anyone. Opposing counsel is grossly exaggerating the circumstances either by ignorance as to the parameters of the situation or to intentionally mislead the court.


DATED: This 1st day of August, 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, your honor, on the basis of Speculation in this quote: "Opposing counsel is grossly exaggerating the circumstances either by ignorance as to the parameters of the situation or to intentionally mislead the court."

The Defendant's council has speculated as to what led me to present the argument (which is not an exaggeration) that allowing the DCT to go through with this eviction would allow the DCT to “take other renters’ homes, business establishments, and industrial areas for the benefit of other citizens who the DCT favors.” I only presented facts, arguments, and the law as I understand them.

 

[Admin23]

May I submit a rebuttal for this objection?

 

[Admin23]

I’m not a witness. There is no possibility of an objection based on speculation.

Speculation:

“When a witness is asked to testify about something they have not directly observed. Witnesses are only allowed to testify about their own direct experiences and thoughts.”

Guide - Objections Guide

INTRODUCTION These are the established objections of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that are established through court policy, unless otherwise codified within law. It is important that lawyers and any player who is objecting to a remark made by the opposing party or to a question...

www.democracycraft.net

 

[drew_hall]

The Supreme Court has decided to reject the objection raised by the Plaintiff. As pointed out by the Defendant, speculation objections are reserved for examinations of witnesses, not the opposing counsel.

 

[drew_hall]

All parties are now called upon to provide a witness, and/or other qualified testimonials, list within 24 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff does not wish to call upon any witnesses, your honor.

 

[drew_hall]

Given that 24 hours has now passed, we will be moving on. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide a closing statement to the court.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout this case, the Plaintiff’s arguments have been grounded in points of law, including the Tenant Rights Act, the Jurisdiction Act, and Sections III and IV of the Constitution. The Defendant’s arguments were not grounded in points of law, required extremely vague and specific interpretations of the law, or were actually in complete agreement with the Plaintiff.



1. The Defendant agreed that “There is no clear requirement within [the Tenant Rights Act] for when the Government is allowed to evict the Tenant.”

2. I will assume that the Defendant meant, “Refusing to renew a rental contract” as opposed to “Not wanting to renew a rental contract” when they said, in response to the Jurisdiction Act, “Not wanting to renew a rental contract does not need to fill these requirements.” I must disagree, as stated before, an eviction is “expelling a tenant from a property.” Refusing to renew the rental contract is quite literally expelling the tenant from the property, thus making it an eviction. Additionally, there was a rental sign still on the truck, which was a clear indicator that a renewal was acceptable.

3. The Defendant said that refusing to renew a rental contract is “entirely acceptable by any person or entity to do.” While this is almost always true, it is not true of the Government. In the Constitution, Section IV, the Government is given a list of 16 rights that they shall not breach, and this eviction violates 2 of them (See Clauses XIII and XV). Of course, these are “subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society” [bold for emphasis], however, the Defendant has provided no laws showing that the DCT has the authority to violate these rights.

4. The Defendant said, “I do not know what other entity would be in charge of maintaining government rental properties in urban areas. It surely wouldn’t be the Department of Health or Department of Justice. No one else fits the bill.” This much does not matter. This case is not about whether or not the DCT should be allowed to evict a tenant. It’s about, under the current laws, whether or not they are allowed to evict a tenant. Continuing, the Defendant claimed that the DCT has inherited the role of being the landlord on behalf of the government in an urban environment due to this sentence in the Constitution: “The department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country’s urban environments.” This is an extraordinarily vague and likely incorrect interpretation. The DCT is charged with creation of Government infrastructure and the maintenance of build quality throughout the country’s urban environments. Evicting the Plaintiff for the sole purpose of giving the truck to another citizen is certainly not one of these two purposes of the DCT. Thus, it is clear that the DCT is not to be evicting the Plaintiff.

5. The Defendant says that “The Defense is alleging that this is not unreasonable and is not a search or a seizure, thus nullifying the argument using Section IV, Clause XV of the Constitution.” Your honor, evicting the Plaintiff from the food truck – his primary business location – is literally seizing the food truck and destroying the Plaintiff’s lifestyle. This is a clear and direct violation of Clause XV. Additionally, even if it is found not to be violating Clause XV (which I believe it clearly is), the Defense provided no rebuttal to the fact that this operation is violating Clause XIII, which guarantees equality under the law.

6. The Defendant said, “Even if opposing counsel thinks this is unreasonable, the Food Truck Race Event is meant to keep Redmont fun and interactive.” This is not grounded in points of law. If “fun and interactive” were a justification for disobeying the law, we’d have to throw out many laws, such as Bank Robbery, since the criminal side of Redmont is “fun and interactive.” Continuing, the Defendant fell back onto the argument that because they gave 9-days notice, it is justified. While the Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that if an eviction was legal, the Government gave more than the legally required amount of notice, the Plaintiff is arguing that the eviction itself is illegal.

7. The Defendant said, “No, this would not allow the DCT to ‘take other renters’ homes, business establishments, and industrial areas for the benefit of other citizens who the DCT favors.’” I have to completely disagree with that. The DCT is literally taking a renter’s business establishment for the benefit of another citizen (whoever wins the Food Truck Race Event). This is exactly the precedent that would be set if the DCT is allowed to go through with this.



In summary, the Plaintiff has shown that throughout the law, the only times the DCT is allowed to perform an eviction is laid out in the Jurisdiction Act, and they are violations of:
(a) Building Regulations
(b) Minimum Amenities Requirements
(c) Prohibited Items in Dwellings

Anything beyond that is directly violating Sections III and IV of the Constitution and the Jurisdiction Act. The Defense has failed to provide legal ground for any other circumstances allowing an eviction.

The Plaintiff thanks the Supreme Court and the opposing counsel for their time, and looks forward to the Defense’s Closing Statement.

DATED: This 3 of August, 2022.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT



Good morning, your Honors, opposing counsel.



I will again use the same format of quoting each paragraph of opposing counsel and rebut them each.





“1. The Defendant agreed that “There is no clear requirement within [the Tenant Rights Act] for when the Government is allowed to evict the Tenant.””


Yes, the Defense did agree to this. This was not previously an eviction as it was simply a notice that the Government did not want to continue renting this food truck to the anyone after 7/30 as there was a Food Truck Race being held by the DCT.


“2. I will assume that the Defendant meant, “Refusing to renew a rental contract” as opposed to “Not wanting to renew a rental contract” when they said, in response to the Jurisdiction Act, “Not wanting to renew a rental contract does not need to fill these requirements.” I must disagree, as stated before, an eviction is “expelling a tenant from a property.” Refusing to renew the rental contract is quite literally expelling the tenant from the property, thus making it an eviction. Additionally, there was a rental sign still on the truck, which was a clear indicator that a renewal was acceptable.”

A rental contract is for a certain period of time. After that time is up, there is no guarantee of renting again. That is how renting works. The Plaintiff did not buy the food truck outright. The Plaintiff rented the food truck for a certain period of time. The Plaintiff’s rental contract for the food truck ended on July 30th, 17:39. There was no guarantee of renting it again after that time. Renting once is not a guarantee to rent it indefinitely. There was no contract signed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to how long the Plaintiff can rent the food truck for. The Defendant told the Plaintiff that they do not want the food truck to be rented after 7/30. This time was after the Plaintiff’s rental contract at the time would be over. Opposing counsel states that the existence of a sign is a clear indication of an offer being made. This is not the case. There was no offer for anyone to rent after July 30th. It is as simple as that. If the mere existence of something means it is legal or allowable to interact with that thing in a certain way, bank robbery should be legal, murder should be legal, moonshining should be legal, etc. This is a poor legal argument to make.


“3. The Defendant said that refusing to renew a rental contract is “entirely acceptable by any person or entity to do.” While this is almost always true, it is not true of the Government. In the Constitution, Section IV, the Government is given a list of 16 rights that they shall not breach, and this eviction violates 2 of them (See Clauses XIII and XV). Of course, these are “subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society” [bold for emphasis], however, the Defendant has provided no laws showing that the DCT has the authority to violate these rights.”

Clause XIII gives equality to all citizens of Redmont. The Defendant stating that they do not want to do business with any person regarding the food truck rental property is very equal. This is also a very specific circumstance in which government property is being rented out beyond the time in which the government wants to rent out a property. This case has no basis for the argument of equality.

Clause XV states that every citizen has the right against unreasonable search and seizure. This is not:

1. Unreasonable;
2. A search; and
3. A seizure.

This is simply the Defendant not wanting to rent out a property that the Defendant owns and the Defendant has control over. The Plaintiff has no ability to use this clause of the constitution to argue what he is arguing.


“4. The Defendant said, “I do not know what other entity would be in charge of maintaining government rental properties in urban areas. It surely wouldn’t be the Department of Health or Department of Justice. No one else fits the bill.” This much does not matter. This case is not about whether or not the DCT should be allowed to evict a tenant. It’s about, under the current laws, whether or not they areallowed to evict a tenant. Continuing, the Defendant claimed that the DCT has inherited the role of being the landlord on behalf of the government in an urban environment due to this sentence in the Constitution: “The department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country’s urban environments.” This is an extraordinarily vague and likely incorrect interpretation. The DCT is charged with creation of Government infrastructure and the maintenance of build quality throughout the country’s urban environments. Evicting the Plaintiff for the sole purpose of giving the truck to another citizen is certainly not one of these two purposes of the DCT. Thus, it is clear that the DCT is not to be evicting the Plaintiff.”

In Section III of the constitution, it states:

“Role of the Cabinet.

The Cabinet is a group of advisers to the President known as secretaries & Executive Officers, who collectively administer and guide government decision-making and policy. The body holds no power outside of department & office policy, instead, it derives its power through advising the President.

1. Responsible for community engagement through events and media.
2. Oversees Government-owned assets, including any cities and towns, plots, apartments, and buildings, as well as the management of the GDP and Government balance.
3. Responsible for changes (not law) in economic systems, transportation systems, and town/city systems.
4. Cabinet can put forward proposals to staff for plugins.

No person shall hold the position of President, Vice President, Secretary, Executive Officer, or any other Principal Officer position simultaneously with a position as Representative or Senator.”


No other Cabinet position than the DCT would have any authority to oversee public property in the urban area that is Reveille. The DCT has full authority to oversee Government owned assets, which includes the right to not want to rent out a property. The Plaintiff has no argument here either.


“5. The Defendant says that “The Defense is alleging that this is not unreasonable and is not a search or a seizure, thus nullifying the argument using Section IV, Clause XV of the Constitution.” Your honor, evicting the Plaintiff from the food truck – his primary business location – is literally seizing the food truck and destroying the Plaintiff’s lifestyle. This is a clear and direct violation of Clause XV. Additionally, even if it is found not to be violating Clause XV (which I believe it clearly is), the Defense provided no rebuttal to the fact that this operation is violating Clause XIII, which guarantees equality under the law.”

Rebuttals were posted above in this message.

The only thing destroying the Plaintiff’s lifestyle is him paying OverlordOfPeonys $10,000 for this rental truck. It is his own business decision that is destroying his lifestyle. Not the Defendant.


“6. The Defendant said, “Even if opposing counsel thinks this is unreasonable, the Food Truck Race Event is meant to keep Redmont fun and interactive.” This is not grounded in points of law. If “fun and interactive” were a justification for disobeying the law, we’d have to throw out many laws, such as Bank Robbery, since the criminal side of Redmont is “fun and interactive.” Continuing, the Defendant fell back onto the argument that because they gave 9-days notice, it is justified. While the Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that if an eviction was legal, the Government gave more than the legally required amount of notice, the Plaintiff is arguing that the eviction itself is illegal.”

“Fun and interactive” is not a justification in law. That is what the rest of the Defense’s arguments are for.


“7. The Defendant said, “No, this would not allow the DCT to ‘take other enters’ homes, business establishments, and industrial areas for the benefit of other citizens who the DCT favors.’” I have to completely disagree with that. The DCT is literally taking a renter’s business establishment for the benefit of another citizen (whoever wins the Food Truck Race Event). This is exactly the precedent that would be set if the DCT is allowed to go through with this.”

Opposing counsel is again being misleading. He is telling the court that this case will solidify the government’s right to take away any citizen’s rental area even if it is not owned by the government. The Defense has been making very specific arguments as to the justification of not wanting to rent a property past a certain date, and has made very specific arguments as to the legal justification of how that is allowable. Opposing counsel has twice tried to give the court inaccurate information as to what the Defense is arguing or what those arguments will entail in precedent.

The Defendant did not sieze property of the Plaintiff. The Defendant simply stated that they do not want to do business with anyone pertaining to the rental food truck (which is in the Defendant’s full ownership) after 7/30. The Defendant let the (at the time) current time of the Defendant’s rental period expire to say that they do not want to do business with anyone. The point at which Plaintiff’s rental time ended was 7/30, 17:39. The point at which the government did not want to do business with anyone pertaining to the food truck rental was 8/1, 00:00. This is not a seizure of property. This is the Defendant letting a rental contract expire and then stating that they do not want another rental contract after that contract expired.


DATED: This 3rd day of August, 2022.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, opposing counsel...

I understand it is not generally considered to be my turn to speak right now, but it seems the Defendant has misunderstood something I said. May I offer to better explain it?

 

[Admin23]

I believe opposing counsel’s arguments and statements here, as they are written, have been fully understood by myself and the rest of the court. Opposing counsel had ample time to refine his arguments and make them crystal clear. A whole 48 hours, in fact. I believe they are as clear as they can be, and I do not believe there is any misunderstanding in opposing counsel’s arguments from myself or the court.

 

[Dartanboy]

even if it is not owned by the government

You wouldn't have said that if you understood what I was saying.

 

[drew_hall]

The court has decided to not allow any more filings. We will now enter into recess while a verdict is discussed.

 

[JoeGamer]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 11

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Tenant Rights Act does not outline when the federal government is allowed to evict one from a plot, it only states the length of time in which a tenant must be warned of an eviction
2. The Department of Construction and Transportation did not have the ability to evict the tenant from the building as it did not violate §3.1 of the Jurisdiction Act
3. The federal government violated Section IV, Clause XV of the Constitution by evicting the tenant.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The tenant cannot force the government into a contract they do not wish to be in. The government no longer wished to create a contract between itself and the plaintiff.
2. The Department of Construction and Transportation has inherited the role of being the landlord on behalf of the government as the cabinet has the power to oversee government-owned assets.
3. The federal government has not violated Section IV, Clause XV of the Constitution as this was not unreasonable, a search, or a seizure.

III. THE COURT OPINION

Associate Justice JoeGamer delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Wuutie and Associate Justice Drew_Hall joined. Chief Justice Wuutie filed a concurring opinion.

Justice JoeGamer delivered the opinion of the Court

The intersection of two laws never ceases to provide amazing cases before the Court. In the case laid before the Court, the intersection between tenant rights and contract law gives way to this case. For the longest time, the Commonwealth of Redmont has protected the rights of tenants to prevent abuse from landlords. Congress has passed the Tenant Vibes Act and the Tenant Rights Act in order to protect those who rent residential and commercial property. Simultaneously, Congress also passed legislation to protect contracts made between two parties with the Contract Law Foundation Act. With each law applying to this situation, it is the goal of the Court to decide how each applies to the situation while following each law.

I​

Whenever a region is available to rent through the use of rental signs, a contract is presented. A contract exists when seven criteria are met: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent, and Format. Each of these criteria is met such that a rent region sign is a contract and is legally enforceable.

i​

Breaking down each contract criteria, it is evident that a contract exists between the landlord (Offeror) and tenant (Offered). Under the Contract Law Foundation Act, an offer is defined to be “this is a unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business.” The statement of terms of a rental region is stated on the rental region sign: rental period, rent price, and expiration on the rental region. These terms written out are an offer that the offered can either accept or reject making the sign an offer, not an invitation to treat which cannot be accepted.
Upon accepting the offer from the offeror, a contract is formed (provided that the contract doesn’t fail any other criteria with the Contract Law Foundation Act). In application to rent region signs, when the offered rents the region via sign, a contract is formed between the landlord and the tenant. Since the terms cannot be modified by the offered, modification rules will typically not apply; one can simply accept or reject the offer on the sign.
Rental region signs utilize executed consideration, a promise in return for an act. Consideration is required in all contracts. A rent region signs consideration is the use of land in return for monetary compensation. This form of consideration passes the consideration test under §9 - Consideration of the Contract Law Foundation Act.
When looking at capacity, the Court must look at both the offeror and the offered. The Contract Law Foundation Act is rather silent on capacity with its only mention being in the initial criteria. Based on the definition of “capacity,” capacity should be defined to be a party that has the legal ability to enter into a contract. In the case of rent region signs, it’s on a case-by-case basis on whether each party has the capacity to enter a contract.
Legality and legal intent are both not greatly defined by the Contract Law Foundation Act. Breaking each down, legality means whether the contract itself is enforceable and legally binding. The Court can define legal intent as the determination of parties to act or perform in a particular manner. In regards to rent region signs, each of these must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but typically rent region signs will pass both of these tests.
Finally, a contract must have a format. Like before, this is not greatly described within the Contract Law Foundation Act. Again looking at the definition of format, the Court can best define a format to be a contract that follows the prior criteria, holds proper format and is thus legally binding and enforceable by the Court. If a rent region's sign holds everything else that a contract needs in order to be legally enforceable, it has the proper format.
A rent sign region will almost always be a legally binding contract, enforceable through the Court. With the few exceptions from capacity, legality, and legal intent, rent region signs provide an offer to the offered that can be accepted. This is a contract that can be legally enforced by the Courts.

ii​

When looking at the contract the Commonwealth laid before Yeet_Boy, offer, acceptance, consideration, and format have already been established because all rent region signs pass these tests. In order to establish this contract as legally binding, the contract must pass the contract-specific test: capacity, legality, and legal intent.
When looking at capacity, the Court must test each party involved with the contract. The offered, Yeet_Boy, has the capacity to enter this contract as long as he is able to afford his promise as a part of the contract. The offeror, the Commonwealth of Redmont, also holds the capacity to offer this contract. Under the power given to the executive in Section III Role of the Cabinet point two, the Cabinet has the ability to oversee government-owned assists; this includes buildings owned by the government, like a taco truck. This oversight of government-owned assets can include writing contracts.
When it comes to legality and legal intent, there is nothing within this contract that would delegitimize this contract or make it unenforceable.
The contract between the Commonwealth of Redmont and Yeet_Boy is a valid contract and thus legally enforceable by the Courts.

II​

The two biggest factors of a contract are an offer made and the acceptance of an offer. If one of these factors is missing, the Contract can not be enforced by the Court, nor is it legally binding upon the parties.

i​

All contracts begin with an offer by the offeror; without an offer, no contract can take place. What the court has seen from this case is a contract that existed between the federal government and Yeet_Boy. According to Exhibit A, this contract had an expiry date of July 30th, meaning Yeet_Boy would no longer hold the rent of rev-foodtruck. In order to hold onto this plot, the contract must be renewed.
Even when a contract is renewed, the contract must hold to the same criteria listed in the Contract Law Foundation Act. It is apparent in Exhibit A that the Commonwealth of Redmont did not wish to further legal relation upon the expiry of the contract for rev-foodtruck. As noted on the sign “Do not rent past 7/30.” All contracts start with an offer. Without an offer, a contract cannot exist between two parties. By the Commonwealth stating to not rent past the contract expiry date, they did not provide a proper offer needed to create legal relations with anyone, including the current tenant.
No provision within the Tenant Vibes Act or Tenant Rights Act gives a tenant the ability to bypass contract law and force a landlord into legal relations. While in a contract with a landlord, tenants hold many rights that protect them from the landlord, however, there is no right to force a landlord into a contract. In this case, the Commonwealth has the authority to stop legal relations upon the expiration of a contract.

ii​

This case is not about eviction as eviction requires the removal from a rental property while a contract exists. Eviction is not the landlord no longer wishing to participate in legal relations with the tenant. The expiration of a contract is fundamentally different from an eviction.

III​

This case is hinged on the creation of legal relations. No one, including the government, can be forced to create legal relations with anyone. Redmont law does not require the creation of legal relations between any two parties. When an offer is not presented to a tenant, the tenant cannot accept the offer. Contracts are based on an offer being presented, and when an offer is not presented, legal relations cannot be created.

Chief Justice Wuutie, concurring

Some things that need to be addressed in this case include: a clarification of the rights of the tenants and the owner of a specific resource like a plot or an apartment. Was the “eviction” justified, was a contract established between the tenant and owner, etc.
The rights of a tenant are the same rights as the landlord or owner of the plot or apartment and in this case the food truck. The tenant therefore owns the full plot, and the owner or landlord of the plot is not allowed to enter their private section or even to trespass without permission. The tenant is the “owner” for a month or how long the contract says. The landlord cannot breach the contract halfway to get somebody out his/her apartment or plot.
The Department of Construction and Transport can evict people of their apartments and plots when they violate certain rules like not having the appropriate play time to have a plot. The DCT however can’t interfere or violate someone’s personal space without recording a violation. The eviction is for this sole reason not justified. The DCT like the landlords and the tenants have restrictions on what they can do what they cannot. The landlord restrictions are laid out before. The tenant however needs to hold to the contract between them and the landlord and if a breach the landlord has the power to start the process of eviction of the person on the landlord’s property laid out in the Tenant Rights Act.
I see the situation between a tenant and a landlord as a contract because it follows the same principles. The contract between the tenant and the landlord, the government, expired on 30th of July. Thereafter the tenant needs to go renew the contract if the landlord accepts the conditions laid out in the contract or if the landlord even want to rent out it again. In this case the Landlord clearly did not want to renew the contract by setting 2 signs at the food truck that the contract would not be renewed. Following precedents FCR 36, a contract was never established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. “For a valid contract to be in existence, there must be four components present. Firstly, there must be an offer. Secondly, there must be an acceptance. Thirdly, there must be consideration. Finally, there must be an intention to create legal relations.” The Plaintiff gave an offer, but the offer was never accepted and even denied before the offer was given. The Plaintiff never established a contract and therefore illegally rented out the place again. The eviction is therefore more than justified. We cannot allow people to do what they want with rental regions. When the owner wants to stop the contract and not extend it, then this must been acknowledged. When a sign is set with no further signs according to the rent place clicking the sign itself can establish a contract and therefore is not basis for eviction or removal of the tenant.
The removal of the Plaintiff is justified and cannot be called an eviction because no contract was established, and the Plaintiff did not follow the wishes of the Owner at the time. The renewal of the contract is not a breach of illegal search and seizure, or trespassing. The DCT had the right to remove the Plaintiff but in my opinion, I would like to advice that this goes through Court before a removal. I would like to set this as precedent, a lawsuit and then a possible removal and not the other way around.

IV. DECISION
The Court hereby rules in favor of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

The Court hereby lifts the emergency injunction preventing the removal of Yeet_Boy from rev-foodtruck.

It is so ordered.​