Lawsuit: Adjourned Roryyy___ v. ISweatDuels [2025] DCR 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twiscet

Twiscet

Citizen
Representative
Public Affairs Department
Education Department
Statesman
Twiscet
Twiscet
Representative
Joined
Aug 6, 2024
Messages
26
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Rory, (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

ISweatDuels
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Between 20:00 on December 13, 2024, and 09:38 UTC on December 14, 2024, the defendant, ISweatDuels, was responsible for killing 178 of Rory's sheep. Over this period, ISweatDuels intentionally and systematically targeted Rory's sheep, causing significant harm. This action not only resulted in the immediate loss of livestock but also led to a substantial loss of potential income, as the wool that these sheep would have produced could no longer be harvested and sold.

I. PARTIES
Rory

ISweatDuels

II. FACTS
1. Between December 13th 2024 20:00 and December 14th 09:38 Rory lost all of his hundreds of sheep.
2. During the time frame between 20:00 on December 13, 2024, and 09:38 UTC on December 14, 2024, when Rory's sheep were lost, ISweatDuels was responsible for killing 178 sheep.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant's actions in killing 178 of the plaintiff’s sheep constitute a clear violation of the Animal & Pet Offenses Act, specifically under Section (2) titled Animal Murder. According to the Act, animal murder is defined as the act of killing a citizen's animal without consent, and is classified as a summary criminal offense. By deliberately and unlawfully killing these sheep, the defendant has not only committed animal murder but has also violated the plaintiff’s rights as an animal owner. This behaviour demands legal action, as it directly contravenes the protections put in place to prevent harm to animals.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $40,000 is to cover the damages, legal fees, and lost potential income from the wool. It includes the cost of replacing the sheep, legal expenses, and the value of the wool that would have been produced by the 178 sheep. 10 000$ for legal fees, 10 000$ for opportunity costs, 10 000$ for emotional damages and 10 000$ for loss of enjoyment.

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: 15th of January 2025.
 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@isweatduels is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of roryyy___ v. isweatduels [2025] DCR 7

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
ko531 said:

Writ of Summons


@isweatduels is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of roryyy___ v. isweatduels [2025] DCR 7

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

Click to expand...
Your honor, the defendant has failed to appear. The plaintiff motions for a default judgment.
 
Good Morning,
Your Honor I am the Defendants Public Defender.
 
Your honor, a typographical error has resulted in the omission of important details, including the prayers for relief, in the filing. I respectfully request the court’s permission to amend the filing.
 
Twiscet said:
Your honor, a typographical error has resulted in the omission of important details, including the prayers for relief, in the filing. I respectfully request the court’s permission to amend the filing.
Click to expand...
You may
 
Last edited:
We will now enter discover. Discovery will last 72 hours starting now.
 
Terrible sorry, this case went under the radar.

The Defense has 72 hours to post an answer to complaint
 
Your honor, as we haven't moved on yet, we would like to attach some evidence. The previous attorney on the case seems to have mistakenly not attached that as well. He has been fired from Dragon Law Firm so this won't happen again. We are happy to let the defense have more time to examine the evidence before posting their response.

1739075743851.png
1739075749161.png
1739075779697.png
 
Answer to Complaint

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

(Roryyy___)
Plaintiff

v.

(ISWEATDUELS)[represented by: PD Programm]
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence doesn't affirm nor deny that animals were killed.
2. The Defence does not affirm that this was done with bad intent.
3. The Defence doesn't affirm that it were hundreds as this means it was at least 200+ as it means there are at least 2x100.
4. The Defence doesn't affirm that any emotional consequences were suffered.



II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence moves that there is no Evidence which shows the Defendant trespassing or otherwise.
2. The Evidence that is provided is provided by Staff which is disputable if applicable here.
3. There is no show of Evidence that the sign in P-003 was there when there was the alleged murder.
4. There is no proof that this took place in Redmont.
5. There is no proof that these were roryyy___'s sheep if the were there at all.
6. It is disputable if those animals if they did live there were happy and if the alleged perpetrator was not doing them a Favor.
7. The Plaintiff is reducing these "alleged" sheep to there Value which can't be done in good faith or in a situation of emotional damage.

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 (9) day of (Febuary) (2025)
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, as we haven't moved on yet, we would like to attach some evidence. The previous attorney on the case seems to have mistakenly not attached that as well. He has been fired from Dragon Law Firm so this won't happen again. We are happy to let the defense have more time to examine the evidence before posting their response.

View attachment 51710
View attachment 51711
View attachment 51712
Click to expand...
The Evidence will be accepted. If the defense wishes, they can have extra 24 hours to either examine, challenge or submit rebuttal evidence. Otherwise please let the court know if you wish to move on and we can continue to opening statements
 
ko531 said:
The Evidence will be accepted. If the defense wishes, they can have extra 24 hours to either examine, challenge or submit rebuttal evidence. Otherwise please let the court know if you wish to move on and we can continue to opening statements
Click to expand...
Thank you your Honor these hours are needed.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, as we haven't moved on yet, we would like to attach some evidence. The previous attorney on the case seems to have mistakenly not attached that as well. He has been fired from Dragon Law Firm so this won't happen again. We are happy to let the defense have more time to examine the evidence before posting their response.

View attachment 51710
View attachment 51711
View attachment 51712
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
May I ask the Plaintiff why they believe it were their sheep?
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your Honor,
May I ask the Plaintiff why they believe it were their sheep?
Click to expand...

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Discovery is over; the defense may not partake in interrogatory at this stage. We wish to move to opening statements.

 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Discovery is over; the defense may not partake in interrogatory at this stage. We wish to move to opening statements.

Click to expand...
Your Honor,
I mearly asked the your Honor if I could ask the Plaintiff a question ? Never did I interrogate the Plaintiff.
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Discovery is over; the defense may not partake in interrogatory at this stage. We wish to move to opening statements.

Click to expand...
Sustained

Interrogations are the only time a side can ask questions directly to the other side. As we are now almost 72 hours past the 24 hours I originally gave you, so we are moving on. The plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statements.
 
ko531 said:
Sustained

Interrogations are the only time a side can ask questions directly to the other side. As we are now almost 72 hours past the 24 hours I originally gave you, so we are moving on. The plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statements.
Click to expand...

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff couldn't provide a Oppening Statement we wish they be held in Contempt and that the Defence may Provide theirs to the District Court of Redmont.
 
ko531 said:
Sustained

Interrogations are the only time a side can ask questions directly to the other side. As we are now almost 72 hours past the 24 hours I originally gave you, so we are moving on. The plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statements.
Click to expand...
I apologize your Honor. This case flew under the radar between travel and other larger cases. I kindly ask the court for 10 more hours.

Edit: since we are almost at the 10 hour point, I would like to inform the court I have my statement ready for pasting whenever the court approves. Otherwise I can weave it into my closing.
 
Last edited:
Alexander P. Love said:
I apologize your Honor. This case flew under the radar between travel and other larger cases. I kindly ask the court for 10 more hours.

Edit: since we are almost at the 10 hour point, I would like to inform the court I have my statement ready for pasting whenever the court approves. Otherwise I can weave it into my closing.
Click to expand...
Approved
 
ko531 said:
Approved
Click to expand...

Opening Statement


May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered in witness of this case of genocide for joy, today I will prove to you that the defendant viciously slaughtered 178 sheep for no more apparent reason than joy, and in doing so, significantly harmed my client. The evidence is blatant: logs show that staff found 178 sheep dead on the plaintiff's property. The defense can try and claim this was not in Redmont (which it doesn't matter anyways) or that they weren't the plaintiff's sheep, but the reality is, staff wouldn't have fulfilled the ticket request if they weren't the plaintiff's sheep on his property in the first place.

The sign is largely irrelevant: the defendant came onto the plaintiff's property and murdered 178 sheep the plaintiff cares for and uses for economic gain. The law entitles my client to legal remedy whether or not a sign is there to warn them. It is frankly common sense to not murder someone else's animals. Whether or not the sheep were "happy" is irrelevant; it was not the defendant's place to make that judgment. We also don't kill things for simply being unhappy. As for the valuation of the sheep, one can put a price tag on something they love still. A sheep has an economic value and a sentimental value which are separate. We argue the defendant must burden the cost of both. 178 sheep can yield a lot of wool over time:

1739732488378.png

Just after 30 minutes of breeding and shearing the sheep, the wool obtained can be sold for over $10,000. This function is exponential, so there are many missed opportunity gains but we chose $10,000 as a very conservative compensatory claim to be reasonable. All of this value is obtained while the sheep are alive, so the plaintiff can love his animals and sheep all while obtaining economic utility from them. He loves animals in general, and losing his entire farm he worked hard for, including his best sheep, did a number on his psyche. $10,000 is, again, a conservative and reasonable request for emotional damages. Killing 178 sheep belonging to someone else for nothing more than hedonism is incredibly outrageous, so we yet again request punitive damages. Finally, Dragon Law Firm is expensive, and as to not sadden a client who has already been hurt, the defense should cover his legal expenses.


Thank you.

 
The defense has 72 hours to post their opening statements
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Opening Statement


May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered in witness of this case of genocide for joy, today I will prove to you that the defendant viciously slaughtered 178 sheep for no more apparent reason than joy, and in doing so, significantly harmed my client. The evidence is blatant: logs show that staff found 178 sheep dead on the plaintiff's property. The defense can try and claim this was not in Redmont (which it doesn't matter anyways) or that they weren't the plaintiff's sheep, but the reality is, staff wouldn't have fulfilled the ticket request if they weren't the plaintiff's sheep on his property in the first place.

The sign is largely irrelevant: the defendant came onto the plaintiff's property and murdered 178 sheep the plaintiff cares for and uses for economic gain. The law entitles my client to legal remedy whether or not a sign is there to warn them. It is frankly common sense to not murder someone else's animals. Whether or not the sheep were "happy" is irrelevant; it was not the defendant's place to make that judgment. We also don't kill things for simply being unhappy. As for the valuation of the sheep, one can put a price tag on something they love still. A sheep has an economic value and a sentimental value which are separate. We argue the defendant must burden the cost of both. 178 sheep can yield a lot of wool over time:
View attachment 51925
Just after 30 minutes of breeding and shearing the sheep, the wool obtained can be sold for over $10,000. This function is exponential, so there are many missed opportunity gains but we chose $10,000 as a very conservative compensatory claim to be reasonable. All of this value is obtained while the sheep are alive, so the plaintiff can love his animals and sheep all while obtaining economic utility from them. He loves animals in general, and losing his entire farm he worked hard for, including his best sheep, did a number on his psyche. $10,000 is, again, a conservative and reasonable request for emotional damages. Killing 178 sheep belonging to someone else for nothing more than hedonism is incredibly outrageous, so we yet again request punitive damages. Finally, Dragon Law Firm is expensive, and as to not sadden a client who has already been hurt, the defense should cover his legal expenses.


Thank you.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The defence respectfully objects, and requests the uploaded evidence (The graph) be struck from the record for the following reason.

The evidence was not filed during discovery as per the Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use). ‘All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.’



Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defence moves that the evidence in the plaintiff's opening statement be struck, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) ‘At any point and anytime during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.’
‘Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)’
‘Evidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting.’ --

Rule 4.6 is clear that evidence that is not properly formatted may be struck for improper formatting, in addition to its incorrect introduction outside of discovery.

 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The defence respectfully objects, and requests the uploaded evidence (The graph) be struck from the record for the following reason.

The evidence was not filed during discovery as per the Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use). ‘All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.’



Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defence moves that the evidence in the plaintiff's opening statement be struck, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) ‘At any point and anytime during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.’
‘Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)’
‘Evidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting.’ --

Rule 4.6 is clear that evidence that is not properly formatted may be struck for improper formatting, in addition to its incorrect introduction outside of discovery.

Click to expand...
It’s not evidence, it’s a visual aid of my own making. It doesn’t prove anything further to be true, it simply visualizes the argument I made.
 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The defence respectfully objects, and requests the uploaded evidence (The graph) be struck from the record for the following reason.

The evidence was not filed during discovery as per the Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use). ‘All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.’



Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The defence moves that the evidence in the plaintiff's opening statement be struck, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily) ‘At any point and anytime during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.’
‘Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)’
‘Evidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting.’ --

Rule 4.6 is clear that evidence that is not properly formatted may be struck for improper formatting, in addition to its incorrect introduction outside of discovery.

Click to expand...
Sustained, while everything else in the opening statement will not be struck as no new information was provided by this Graph, the graph itself will be struck
 
The Defense has 72 hours to provide their opening statements.
 
ko531 said:
Sustained, while everything else in the opening statement will not be struck as no new information was provided by this Graph, the graph itself will be struck
Click to expand...

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

If I am giving a lesson, I have a slideshow. The slides themselves aren’t new information, they merely complement what I am saying: a visual aid in other words. The graph is the same principle. It isn’t evidence, it’s an aid to my argument. Don’t set a weird precedent that one can’t use visual aids in their argument. If the defense wants to attack the validity of the data I capture in the graph they may. The graph isn’t proving anything true or false, it’s just being used in place of a bunch of words and numbers in paragraph form. Otherwise, if you’re going to deny this motion, I would like to revise my opening to textually convey what the image is conveying if that would make you happier.

 
Alexander P. Love said:

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

If I am giving a lesson, I have a slideshow. The slides themselves aren’t new information, they merely complement what I am saying: a visual aid in other words. The graph is the same principle. It isn’t evidence, it’s an aid to my argument. Don’t set a weird precedent that one can’t use visual aids in their argument. If the defense wants to attack the validity of the data I capture in the graph they may. The graph isn’t proving anything true or false, it’s just being used in place of a bunch of words and numbers in paragraph form. Otherwise, if you’re going to deny this motion, I would like to revise my opening to textually convey what the image is conveying if that would make you happier.

Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider is Denied

It was struck not because it was providing any new information but that it is an additional material being used in legal arguments that the court rules specifically state need to be provided in discovery.

I am also not allowing you to revise your opening statement as we both agree nothing was being added by the graph then all you would be doing is rewording what was already said.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

This case is rather simple. The plaintiff claims 178 sheep were killed by the defendant, and the evidence is clear. They did it, they killed 178 sheep. P-001, P-002 both indicate they have in-fact killed 178 sheep.

The defendant was already fined as a result of this crime, $100 per animal murder -- this comes out to $17,8000 for which the Plaintiff was already awarded and the defendant fined.


The plaintiff suggests that wool produced could accumulate well into the $10,000 range over a 30 minute period. They provided no calculations, equations, graphs, or explanations of how they came to this number. They’ve yielded no base values of wool, or from where they’ve derived this value from.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter, the Legal Damages Act isn’t inclusive to ‘opportunity costs’ and they did not ask for Punitive damages like the plaintiff would suggest in their opening statements.


The plaintiff offers no evidence or testimony as to the loss of enjoyment in Redmont. We are to take them at face value that the loss of enjoyment happened, or how much it has affected them if at all. And the same can be said for emotional damages.

How can the court know the damages in which to award if the court is not aware how the plaintiff was affected if at all by these events? It’s not within the facts of this case, because that has only outlined the crime, not the damages incurred.

According to the Legal Damages Act 7.1
(I) Emotional Damages - Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. Emotional damages may be proven by witness testimony, reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.
(IV) The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont: - situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm. Loss of enjoyment in Redmont damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive.


As well in accordance with several other cases such as, IShowed_Up v. Michealson [2024] DCR 35 - Where in the court's opinion of this case Humiliation, while not the same damages alleged ask for the same stipulations -- ‘The Legal Damages Act states "Humiliation damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding Judge considers persuasive." There has been no witness testimony to show that there was any Humiliation. during this case.’

Wasserschafe v. A29_2 [2024] DCR 34 - ‘According to the law in the Commonwealth of Redmont, "Loss of enjoyment damages may be established through witness testimony, reasonable person standards, or any other methods the presiding Judge finds compelling." The evidence presented did not meet this threshold of persuasiveness.’

Simply put, this case has no merit. Any damages the court would award would be purely based on immaterial suggestions and not within the facts of the case.

Thank you.

 
As no witnesses were called, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their closing statements
 

Closing Statement


May it please the Court,

Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered today, this is, again, a case of genocide for joy. I have proven to you that the defendant viciously slaughtered 178 sheep for no more apparent reason than joy, and in doing so, significantly harmed my client. The evidence is blatant: logs show that staff found 178 sheep dead on the plaintiff's property. The defense can try and claim this was not in Redmont (which it doesn't matter anyways) or that they weren't the plaintiff's sheep, but the reality is, staff wouldn't have fulfilled the ticket request if they weren't the plaintiff's sheep on his property in the first place. The sheep were killed, and these sheep had value.

Just after 30 minutes of breeding and shearing the sheep, the wool obtained can be sold for over $10,000 using a mathematical formula derived from the breeding and sheering regeneration time of sheep, along with the price of wool. This function is exponential, so there are many missed opportunity gains but we chose $10,000 as a very conservative compensatory claim to be reasonable. All of this value is obtained while the sheep are alive, so the plaintiff can love his animals and sheep all while obtaining economic utility from them. He loves animals in general, and losing his entire farm he worked hard for, including his best sheep, did a number on his psyche. $10,000 is, again, a conservative and reasonable request for emotional damages. Killing 178 sheep belonging to someone else for nothing more than hedonism is incredibly outrageous and impacts my client's ability to enjoy life as a sheep farmer, so we request loss of enjoyment in Redmont damages. Finally, Dragon Law Firm is expensive, and as to not sadden a client who has already been hurt, the defense should cover his legal expenses.

The defense cannot prove that the plaintiff received money already; fine revenue is collected by the Government and not repaid to the victim. My client deserved compensation for what the statutory law lacks. A reasonable person would believe that killing a sheep rancher's sheep causes them to lose money and enjoyment. A reasonable person would believe that killing someone's pet will make the owner sad. People love farm animals all the time (anyone from the country has a chicken or a pig or something they love). Please, be reasonable and fine the defendant for his absurd actions and make my client whole again.

Thank you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The defense has 72 hours to post their closing statement
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Closing Statement


May it please the Court,

Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered today, this is, again, a case of genocide for joy. I have proven to you that the defendant viciously slaughtered 178 sheep for no more apparent reason than joy, and in doing so, significantly harmed my client. The evidence is blatant: logs show that staff found 178 sheep dead on the plaintiff's property. The defense can try and claim this was not in Redmont (which it doesn't matter anyways) or that they weren't the plaintiff's sheep, but the reality is, staff wouldn't have fulfilled the ticket request if they weren't the plaintiff's sheep on his property in the first place. The sheep were killed, and these sheep had value.

Just after 30 minutes of breeding and shearing the sheep, the wool obtained can be sold for over $10,000 using a mathematical formula derived from the breeding and sheering regeneration time of sheep, along with the price of wool. This function is exponential, so there are many missed opportunity gains but we chose $10,000 as a very conservative compensatory claim to be reasonable. All of this value is obtained while the sheep are alive, so the plaintiff can love his animals and sheep all while obtaining economic utility from them. He loves animals in general, and losing his entire farm he worked hard for, including his best sheep, did a number on his psyche. $10,000 is, again, a conservative and reasonable request for emotional damages. Killing 178 sheep belonging to someone else for nothing more than hedonism is incredibly outrageous and impacts my client's ability to enjoy life as a sheep farmer, so we request loss of enjoyment in Redmont damages. Finally, Dragon Law Firm is expensive, and as to not sadden a client who has already been hurt, the defense should cover his legal expenses.

The defense cannot prove that the plaintiff received money already; fine revenue is collected by the Government and not repaid to the victim. My client deserved compensation for what the statutory law lacks. A reasonable person would believe that killing a sheep rancher's sheep causes them to lose money and enjoyment. A reasonable person would believe that killing someone's pet will make the owner sad. People love farm animals all the time (anyone from the country has a chicken or a pig or something they love). Please, be reasonable and fine the defendant for his absurd actions and make my client whole again.

Thank you.

Click to expand...


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

‘Fine revenue is collected by the Government and is not repaid to the victim.’

This is flatly false, it is a matter of public knowledge and regular action that animal murder fines are repaid to the victims. Not only being stated so in a recent district case Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42 but additionally it’s made public every month when the Budget Report is posted by the government.

As a part of that case they had linked the November Budget Report, and it’s visible for all to see that not only was Marissa4 compensated, so too was the DOH!

If we peer into the public January Budget Report we see that not only was the plaintiff was unfined for ‘Animal Murder Compensations x178’, but numerous other unfines happen for this as well between multiple people, including the plaintiff again earlier in the month, Jeygame7816, MuffenPantts, and Lcn.

 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

This is a pretty simple case, the plaintiff is coming around for seconds for money despite having been already funded for the crime of Animal Murder, and they have failed to provide sufficient evidence for Emotional Damages or Loss of Enjoyment, and they have asked for “Opportunity Cost” which isn’t allotted by the Legal Damages Act.


A reasonable person might find that $17,800 ($100 per Animal Murder, January Budget Report) was sufficient to cover the cost of damages incurred, and the plaintiffs suggestion that they had not received these funds as is a standard practice for the department is outrageous on its own, and further highlights just how frivolous this case really is.

The job of the plaintiff in this case is to prove the damages the defendant caused (Judicial Standards Act -- 14 - Burden of Proof ‘The onus of the burden of proof is on the Prosecution‘ | Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72 -- ‘First and foremost, the burden of proof is never on the accused, nor does it ever shift to the accused at any point.'), and instead of providing evidence of grief, emotional damage, or loss of enjoyment the plaintiff relies entirely on a ‘reasonable person test’ and outright lies to the court.


The defence asks the court to consider the facts of this case and consider the fines already paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. There was no evidence or testimony of the damages being asked for.

Thank you.

 
asexualdinosaur said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

‘Fine revenue is collected by the Government and is not repaid to the victim.’

This is flatly false, it is a matter of public knowledge and regular action that animal murder fines are repaid to the victims. Not only being stated so in a recent district case Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42 but additionally it’s made public every month when the Budget Report is posted by the government.

As a part of that case they had linked the November Budget Report, and it’s visible for all to see that not only was Marissa4 compensated, so too was the DOH!

If we peer into the public January Budget Report we see that not only was the plaintiff was unfined for ‘Animal Murder Compensations x178’, but numerous other unfines happen for this as well between multiple people, including the plaintiff again earlier in the month, Jeygame7816, MuffenPantts, and Lcn.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The comment is struck

Court is now in recess pending a verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Roryyy___ v ISweatDuels [2025] DCR 7.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant killed 178 sheep owned by the plaintiff
2. This caused Emotional Damages, Loss of Enjoyment and loss of opportunity costs.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff was already sufficiently compensated already from the DHS.
2. The plaintiff failed to prove any emotional or loss of enjoyment damages

III. THE COURT OPINION

First let's look at the emotional and loss of enjoyment damages. There was no evidence provided for these damages which isn't the largest concern due to the fact that it is extremely hard to completely prove these types of damages. The biggest concern is the fact that hardly in either opening statements or closing statements is there any argument about the plaintiff's actual feelings. At best it is mentioned in passing and instead the arguments are more focused around the reasonable person's test. Instead of arguing that damages of this nature would normally happen, the actual damages should have been the focus. For this I am going to find that no emotional or loss of enjoyment damages occurred.

As for Opportunity costs, yes, the plaintiff was compensated for the sheep by the DHS but not the loss production of the sheep. As for the math argued in calculating these damages, it does seem to check out on paper but since this math assumes a perfect world, there are many logistical problems with it. It assumes the sheep are constantly being breed and sheer but does not include the point at which it becomes animal overcrowding or the fact that eventually there would not be enough grass for the sheep and production would hinder. For this I do find there were loss of opportunity cost but not to the extent of $10,000


IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer of relief.

The DHS is hereby ordered to fine the defendant $5,000 and unfine the plaintiff the same amount.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top