Lawsuit: In Session zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 75

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


zLost (Represented by The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Constitution outlines clear duties to various government departments and agencies, delegating powers specifically to certain institutions. These barriers have been breached when a law regulating public transit fares was passed and signed into law. The Constitution clearly gives the duty to manage fares to the Department of Construction and Transportation, and this power must be restored to the Executive Branch.


I. PARTIES
1. zLost (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. Congress
4. The Department of Construction and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. The Congress and former President Twixted passed the Free Public Transport Act (link) on the 23rd of April.
2. This act altered the pricing for public transportation.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Constitution provides that "The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the... Management of Public Transport networks." Therefore, day-to-day operations such as pricing and fares are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Construction and Transport, and thus the executive branch and not the legislative branch.
2. While "management" is somewhat ambiguous, most public transport systems manage their own fares as part of their general operations, and thus it is reasonable to belief that "Management of Public Transport networks" includes fares and pricing.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Free Public Transport Act to be struck as unconstitutional.
2. The Lovely Law Firm will be assessing $7,500 from the Plaintiff for this case, and thus the Plaintiff requests $7,500 in legal fees.
3. As this significantly reduced tax income coming to the State, the Plaintiff has suffered from the inability of the Commonwealth to provide services it otherwise would with this lost tax revenue. The value and nature of these services are incalculable, and therefore the Plaintiff requests $75 for each day the law has been in effect. This is 85 days, and thus we request $6,375 in damages.

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 29th day of August 2023

 

[Matthew100x]

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 the zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​

 

[Dartanman]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM The Congress and former President Twixted passed the Free Public Transport Act (link) on the 23rd of April.
2. AFFIRM This act altered the pricing for public transportation.

II. DEFENSES
1. While it is true that the Constitution provides that "The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the... Management of Public Transport networks," the defense argues that pricing and fares does not fall within the purview of "management." At many companies, for example, a "manager" handles schedules and operations, but costs and pay are handled by higher-up authorities.

In this metaphor, Public Transport networks are companies, and Congress is the higher-up authority.

2. Furthermore, the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to "impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes." This includes taxes paid to use Public Transport networks.

III. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
The Commonwealth and Plaintiff completely agree on "FACTS" and thus, the Commonwealth believes Summary Judgement is reasonable.

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 13th day of September 2023

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the plaintiff agree with the motion for summary judgment?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Does the plaintiff agree with the motion for summary judgment?

The Plaintiff would like to move to opening statements to allow for more articulation as to the interpretation of the law, and then proceed to summary Judgment immediately after that.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the defendant agree to this arrangement?

 

[Dartanman]

Does the defendant agree to this arrangement?

Yes, your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now be entering an arrangement for opening statements followed by summary judgment.

The plaintiff shall now have 48 hours to post an opening statement. Kindly inform this court if you need an extension.

 

[BlazeX]

Your honor, due to an IRL emergency, the plaintiff requests a 48 hour extension.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted

 

[Matthew100x]

Due to the decision made in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 utilizing the Judicial Fix Act, enforcement of this constitutional amendment is in play (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18), therefore because this case involves a constitutional challenge, the Federal Court of Redmont can no longer over see this case (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act).

Given the circumstances, I am putting this court into a one week recess.

 

[Matthew100x]

This case is now off recess. The plaintiff may now submit their opening statements within the next 48 hours.

 

[Dartanman]

I am informing the Court that I am no longer the Attorney General. @drew_hall is and I will no longer be involved in this case.

 

[BlazeX]

Your honor, may I request an extension? Lovely Law has just transferred ownership and cases need to be reassigned.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, the commonwealth is requesting this case be attended to at this time. Any extension that would have been granted by this court to the Plaintiff in this case would now be void, as over 72 hours have passed since they filed a request for an extension, and the court has yet to even respond.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor, the commonwealth is requesting this case be attended to at this time. Any extension that would have been granted by this court to the Plaintiff in this case would now be void, as over 72 hours have passed since they filed a request for an extension, and the court has yet to even respond.

Your Honor,
The plaintiff is ready with our opening statements. We would like your permission to continue on with our opening statements.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

(Edited for grammar)

 

[Matthew100x]

I'm sorry for the delay. The request for extension is denied given that it came 24 hours after the initial 48 hours expired. The Defendant may post their opening statements.

 

[Neemfy]

Good morning, Your Honor. Me, Anthony, and Drippzy_Tox will be taking the case on behalf of the DLA. We will have an Opening Statement up shortly.