Lawsuit: Pending AnimeInc & KattoC324 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 5

G

gribble19

Citizen
Joined
Jan 27, 2025
Messages
32

Case Filing



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AnimeInc & KattoC324 (both represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiffs

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:

AnimeInc and KattoC324 nominated themselves to the recently held February 2025 elections for the Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor. They ran in this election and, according to the certified results, came second in this election only slightly behind the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth, who were announced as the winners. The ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth, however, did not meet the requirements to run for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of a town as set out in the Towns Rights Executive Order and therefore should not have been allowed on the ballot by the Commonwealth of Redmont. By allowing this illegitimate ticket to run for this election the Commonwealth of Redmont has acted in complete disregard of our law and democratic values and not only has the Commonwealth of Redmont allowed them to run, they have even certified them as the winners of this election. A ticket that can not lawfully run in an election, can clearly also not lawfully win an election, therefore the February 2025 elections for Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor should have been won by AnimeInc and KattoC324, the ticket with the best result out of the tickets that met the requirements to run in this election.


I. PARTIES
1. AnimeInc (Plaintiff)
2. KattoC324 (Plaintiff)
3. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The Towns Rights Executive Order states that one of the requirements a player must meet to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor of a town is for it to have been 1 month since the player’s initial join date. (See Executive Order 15/24 - Towns RIghts)
2. Sleepii_Sloth first joined the server on January 19 2025. (See P-001)
3. The polls for the February 2025 elections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura opened on February 11 2025. (See Mayor Election - FEBRUARY 2025)
4. There is less than a month between January 19 2025 and February 11 2025.
5. The ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth was not eligible to run for Mayor and Deputy Mayor according to the Towns Rights Executive Order.
6. According to the Department of State, the ticket of AnimeInc and KattoC324 got the second most votes in the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth won the same election. (See Mayor Election - FEBRUARY 2025)
7. The tickets of AnimeInc & KattoC324, and lukeyyyMC_ & lucaaasserole were the only two tickets that declared themselves for the Februray 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and also met the requirements to run in this election. (See Mayor Election - FEBRUARY 2025, II.5)
8. AnimeInc and KattoC324 received 21 first preference votes in the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura, while lukeyyyMC_ and lucaaasserole received 4 first preference votes in this same election. (See Mayor Election - FEBRUARY 2025)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Towns Rights Executive Order clearly states the requirements needed in order to run for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of a town. One of these requirements, the necessity for it to have been at least one month since the player’s join date, was not met by the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth, yet the Commonwealth of Redmont allowed them to run in the election regardless. In doing so, the Commonwealth of Redmont has acted in conflict with the Towns Rights Executive Order.
2. The unlawful behavior of the Commonwealth of Redmont described in III.1 has caused harm to the democratic values at the core of our society. The Commonwealth of Redmont has shown a disregard for the law and failed its task of organizing elections by letting a ticket that was not lawfully allowed to participate in an election do so, and by furthermore announcing the victory of this unlawful ticket in this election and appointing them to positions for which they did not meet the legal requirements to run.
3. Beyond the obvious harm caused to every member of our society, the unlawful behavior of the Commonwealth of Redmont as described under III.1 has also furthermore directly harmed AnimeInc and KattoC324, by making them run against a ticket that was not lawfully allowed to participate, and announcing their loss to this same ticket. This has hurt them in many ways, including but not limited to time-wise and emotionally.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:
1. For AnimeInc and KattoC324 to be immediately appointed as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and be declared as the winners of the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor for Aventura. As the plaintiffs ticket was the runner up in this election, and the only ticket that performed better did not meet the requirements to run, they should assume the positions.
2. $5,000 each in Compensatory Damages to be awarded to both AnimeInc and KattoC324 to make up for their time spent preparing and campaigning for the election, as partly illustrated by the campaign messages and graphics created shown in P-002 and P-003, which harmed their earning capacity. (See 4 of Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act)
3. $50,000 each in Punitive Damages to be awarded to both AnimeInc and KattoC324 for the outrageous lack of care and mishandling of the February 2025 Mayoral elections of Aventura by the Department of State. This combined amount is equal to the amount which the state was fined for improper conduct during the January House of Representatives Election in SCR 1 [2025] The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. (See 5 of Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act)
4. $50,000 each in Consequential Damages to be awarded to both AnimeInc and KattoC324 for the emotional damages caused to them due to the improper conduct of this election, whether due to negligence or intentional actions of the Commonwealth of Redmonth. (See 7 of Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act)
5. $63,000 in legal fees, equal to 30% of the total value of this case. (See 9 of Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act)

V. EVIDENCE

P-001.jpg
P-002.jpg
P-003.jpg


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 sixteenth day of February 2025


Proof_of_representation_AnimeInc.png
Proof_of_representation_Katto.jpg

 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PETITION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiffs respectfully request an immediate suspension of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth’s as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura for the duration of this case in order to minimize the potential harm caused in case the court determines that the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth indeed did not meet the requirements to run for this office and that they should not have been appointed to these positions. The Plaintiffs further respectfully request that the former Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura be appointed acting Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura for the duration of this case.

 

Writ of Summons



@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of AnimeInc & KattoC324 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 5.

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.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PETITION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiffs respectfully request an immediate suspension of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth’s as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura for the duration of this case in order to minimize the potential harm caused in case the court determines that the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth indeed did not meet the requirements to run for this office and that they should not have been appointed to these positions. The Plaintiffs further respectfully request that the former Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura be appointed acting Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura for the duration of this case.

Click to expand...

Court Order


In a 3-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to grant a modified injunction. RylandW & Sleepii_Sloth will be suspended from service as Mayor & Deputy Mayor of Aventura, and their predecessors shall return to their post in a caretaker capacity.

 
Your Honor I will be representing the Commonwealth of Redmont in this case.
 

Motion


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

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

1. According to the Towns Rights Executive Order (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/executive-order-15-24-towns-rights.21765/), the requirements that the Plaintiff lists are only pertaining to players running for BOTH Mayor AND Deputy Mayor, neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth ran for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, instead they ran for Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively. Therefore these requirements do not apply to RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth, and their candidacy is therefore legitimate.

2. The Towns Rights Executive Order also states as one of its requirements that: “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements: […] Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.”. AnimeInc, excluding the declaration post for the Adventura Mayor, sent just 1 message in the year of 2025, and the 5 most recent messages date as far back as over 3 months ago (see D-002), this can hardly be considered as active participation on the forums.

3. As seen in the Mayoral Election Post for the February 2025 Mayor Election, the post clearly outlines the requirements to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor, which are: A declaration, having Aventura residency or own property within the Town, Having a minimum of 12 hours of active playtime in the previous 30 days, and having a minimum of 48 hours of total playtime. Evidence P-001 from the Plaintiff show that Sleepii_Sloth meets the playtime requirements needed to run for Deputy Mayor, furthermore, we can see that Sleepii_Sloth also has their Residency within Adventura (see D-001), and as such meets also requirements to run for Deputy Mayor as outlined by the Department of State.

4. The Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief 1 calls for AnimeInc and KattoC324 to be immediately appointed as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and be declared as the winners of the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor for Aventura, however the voting system for the February 2025 Mayor Election was a Single Transferable Vote System, which is defined as: 8 - Single Transferrable Vote (STV) System (1) Voting Process. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. (2) Vote Threshold for Election. (a) In order to be elected, a candidate must reach a specific vote threshold, calculated by: dividing the total valid votes by the sum of the number of seats to be filled plus one, and then adding one to the result (disregarding any remainder or fraction): (total number of formal votes / (number of candidates to be elected + 1)) + 1” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/electoral-act.5428/), however as we can see, in the results of the election (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/mayor-election-february-2025.24702/), AnimeInc and KattoC324 did not receive a majority of votes.

5. Towns Information states that “Each town is required to have fair elections for at least the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-information.1532/), however, if AnimeInc and KattoC324 were to be announced as the winners of the election, the majority of voters would not have voted for them, and this would completely infringe upon the “every man a vote” principle, a fundamental element of democratic governance, and not fair, as mandated.

6. The Defense would like to dismiss this case based on Court Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures) , for Claims including the fact that the Plaintiff has failed to properly prove how and why the Plaintiff should have the election overturned in their favour, and directly shown how the election has affected them time-wise and emotionally, especially since there were 3 candidates, and if one of them would have been disqualified, the election would still have proceeded.

7. The Defense would like to dismiss this case based on Rule 5.14 Factual Error (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures)

8. The Constitution states: “I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.” (see Government - Constitution) , and as neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth were not punished for a crime, they had the legal authority and right to run for the elected office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Adventura.

 
MegaMinerM said:

Motion


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

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

1. According to the Towns Rights Executive Order (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/executive-order-15-24-towns-rights.21765/), the requirements that the Plaintiff lists are only pertaining to players running for BOTH Mayor AND Deputy Mayor, neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth ran for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, instead they ran for Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively. Therefore these requirements do not apply to RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth, and their candidacy is therefore legitimate.

2. The Towns Rights Executive Order also states as one of its requirements that: “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements: […] Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.”. AnimeInc, excluding the declaration post for the Adventura Mayor, sent just 1 message in the year of 2025, and the 5 most recent messages date as far back as over 3 months ago (see D-002), this can hardly be considered as active participation on the forums.

3. As seen in the Mayoral Election Post for the February 2025 Mayor Election, the post clearly outlines the requirements to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor, which are: A declaration, having Aventura residency or own property within the Town, Having a minimum of 12 hours of active playtime in the previous 30 days, and having a minimum of 48 hours of total playtime. Evidence P-001 from the Plaintiff show that Sleepii_Sloth meets the playtime requirements needed to run for Deputy Mayor, furthermore, we can see that Sleepii_Sloth also has their Residency within Adventura (see D-001), and as such meets also requirements to run for Deputy Mayor as outlined by the Department of State.

4. The Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief 1 calls for AnimeInc and KattoC324 to be immediately appointed as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and be declared as the winners of the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor for Aventura, however the voting system for the February 2025 Mayor Election was a Single Transferable Vote System, which is defined as: 8 - Single Transferrable Vote (STV) System (1) Voting Process. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. (2) Vote Threshold for Election. (a) In order to be elected, a candidate must reach a specific vote threshold, calculated by: dividing the total valid votes by the sum of the number of seats to be filled plus one, and then adding one to the result (disregarding any remainder or fraction): (total number of formal votes / (number of candidates to be elected + 1)) + 1” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/electoral-act.5428/), however as we can see, in the results of the election (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/mayor-election-february-2025.24702/), AnimeInc and KattoC324 did not receive a majority of votes.

5. Towns Information states that “Each town is required to have fair elections for at least the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-information.1532/), however, if AnimeInc and KattoC324 were to be announced as the winners of the election, the majority of voters would not have voted for them, and this would completely infringe upon the “every man a vote” principle, a fundamental element of democratic governance, and not fair, as mandated.

6. The Defense would like to dismiss this case based on Court Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures) , for Claims including the fact that the Plaintiff has failed to properly prove how and why the Plaintiff should have the election overturned in their favour, and directly shown how the election has affected them time-wise and emotionally, especially since there were 3 candidates, and if one of them would have been disqualified, the election would still have proceeded.

7. The Defense would like to dismiss this case based on Rule 5.14 Factual Error (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures)

8. The Constitution states: “I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.” (see Government - Constitution) , and as neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth were not punished for a crime, they had the legal authority and right to run for the elected office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Adventura.

Click to expand...
Plaintiff requests response if the Court is inclined to grant the motion.
 

Objection


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

Your Honor, Rule 5.1 of our Court Rules and Procedures states: "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions."

Points 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 of this motion do not specify a Discovery Rule, nor is any information given in these points referred to or applied in the two points (6 and 7) which do specify a Discovery Rule.

Your Honor, given that points 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 do not have any valid purpose for this motion to dismiss by Rule 5.1, and simply constitute the Defendant attempting to list possible defenses under the law or fact to our complaint, the information under these points belongs in an Answer to Complaint. Adding all this irrelevant information to a Motion to Dismiss is a Breach of Procedure, and therefore the Plaintiffs respectfully request points 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 of the Motion to Dismiss to be struck.

 
Alexander P. Love said:
Plaintiff requests response if the Court is inclined to grant the motion.
Click to expand...
Response is not necessary.

gribble19 said:

Objection


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

Your Honor, Rule 5.1 of our Court Rules and Procedures states: "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions."

Points 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 of this motion do not specify a Discovery Rule, nor is any information given in these points referred to or applied in the two points (6 and 7) which do specify a Discovery Rule.

Your Honor, given that points 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 do not have any valid purpose for this motion to dismiss by Rule 5.1, and simply constitute the Defendant attempting to list possible defenses under the law or fact to our complaint, the information under these points belongs in an Answer to Complaint. Adding all this irrelevant information to a Motion to Dismiss is a Breach of Procedure, and therefore the Plaintiffs respectfully request points 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 of the Motion to Dismiss to be struck.

Click to expand...
Sustained - the motion to dismiss filed by the defense fails to meet standard. It serves more as an answer to complaint or opening statement rather than a motion for dismissal. The motion is question will be struck.


MegaMinerM said:

Motion


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

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

1. According to the Towns Rights Executive Order (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/executive-order-15-24-towns-rights.21765/), the requirements that the Plaintiff lists are only pertaining to players running for BOTH Mayor AND Deputy Mayor, neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth ran for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, instead they ran for Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively. Therefore these requirements do not apply to RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth, and their candidacy is therefore legitimate.

2. The Towns Rights Executive Order also states as one of its requirements that: “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements: […] Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.”. AnimeInc, excluding the declaration post for the Adventura Mayor, sent just 1 message in the year of 2025, and the 5 most recent messages date as far back as over 3 months ago (see D-002), this can hardly be considered as active participation on the forums.

3. As seen in the Mayoral Election Post for the February 2025 Mayor Election, the post clearly outlines the requirements to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor, which are: A declaration, having Aventura residency or own property within the Town, Having a minimum of 12 hours of active playtime in the previous 30 days, and having a minimum of 48 hours of total playtime. Evidence P-001 from the Plaintiff show that Sleepii_Sloth meets the playtime requirements needed to run for Deputy Mayor, furthermore, we can see that Sleepii_Sloth also has their Residency within Adventura (see D-001), and as such meets also requirements to run for Deputy Mayor as outlined by the Department of State.

4. The Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief 1 calls for AnimeInc and KattoC324 to be immediately appointed as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and be declared as the winners of the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor for Aventura, however the voting system for the February 2025 Mayor Election was a Single Transferable Vote System, which is defined as: 8 - Single Transferrable Vote (STV) System (1) Voting Process. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. (2) Vote Threshold for Election. (a) In order to be elected, a candidate must reach a specific vote threshold, calculated by: dividing the total valid votes by the sum of the number of seats to be filled plus one, and then adding one to the result (disregarding any remainder or fraction): (total number of formal votes / (number of candidates to be elected + 1)) + 1” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/electoral-act.5428/), however as we can see, in the results of the election (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/mayor-election-february-2025.24702/), AnimeInc and KattoC324 did not receive a majority of votes.

5. Towns Information states that “Each town is required to have fair elections for at least the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-information.1532/), however, if AnimeInc and KattoC324 were to be announced as the winners of the election, the majority of voters would not have voted for them, and this would completely infringe upon the “every man a vote” principle, a fundamental element of democratic governance, and not fair, as mandated.

6. The Defense would like to dismiss this case based on Court Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures) , for Claims including the fact that the Plaintiff has failed to properly prove how and why the Plaintiff should have the election overturned in their favour, and directly shown how the election has affected them time-wise and emotionally, especially since there were 3 candidates, and if one of them would have been disqualified, the election would still have proceeded.

7. The Defense would like to dismiss this case based on Rule 5.14 Factual Error (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures)

8. The Constitution states: “I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.” (see Government - Constitution) , and as neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth were not punished for a crime, they had the legal authority and right to run for the elected office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Adventura.

Click to expand...
Denied. Please follow proper court rules and procedures, as well as adopt proper grammar. ‘Aventura’ and ‘Adventura’ are not the same
 
With that matter settled, the Defense now has 48 hours to post their answer to complaint.

Request an extension if necessary - late submissions may not be tolerated.
 
Your Honor the Defense requests a 12 hour extension. While they realise this is already past the Deadline, the Defense suffered from an internet outage and didn't have the ability to post the Answer to Complaint or request an extension earlier.
 
MegaMinerM said:
Your Honor the Defense requests a 12 hour extension. While they realise this is already past the Deadline, the Defense suffered from an internet outage and didn't have the ability to post the Answer to Complaint or request an extension earlier.
Click to expand...
Granted.

Considering exigent circumstances, you have an additional 12 hours from my post. No further extensions will be tolerated.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

AnimeInc & KattoC324
Plaintiffs

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “The Towns Rights Executive Order states that one of the requirements a player must meet to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor of a town is for it to have been 1 month since the player’s initial join date”
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that “Sleepii_Sloth first joined the server on January 19 2025”
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that “The polls for the February 2025 elections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura opened on February 11 2025”
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that “ There is less than a month between January 19 2025 and February 11 2025”
5. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “ The ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth was not eligible to run for Mayor and Deputy Mayor according to the Towns Rights Executive Order”
6. The Defense AFFIRMS that “According to the Department of State, the ticket of AnimeInc and KattoC324 got the second most votes in the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth won the same election”
7. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that “The tickets of AnimeInc & KattoC324, and lukeyyyMC_ & lucaaasserole were the only two tickets that declared themselves for the Februray 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and also met the requirements to run in this election”
8. The Defense AFFIRMS that “AnimeInc and KattoC324 received 21 first preference votes in the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura, while lukeyyyMC_ and lucaaasserole received 4 first preference votes in this same election”


II. DEFENCES
1. According to the Towns Rights Executive Order (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/executive-order-15-24-towns-rights.21765/), the requirements that the Plaintiff lists are only pertaining to players running for BOTH Mayor AND Deputy Mayor, neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth ran for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, instead they ran for Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively. Therefore these requirements do not apply to RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth, and their candidacy is therefore legitimate.

2. The Towns Rights Executive Order also states as one of its requirements that: “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements: […] Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.”. AnimeInc, excluding the declaration post for the Aventura Mayor, sent just 1 message in the year of 2025, and the 5 most recent messages date as far back as over 3 months ago (see D-002), this can hardly be considered as active participation on the forums.

3. As seen in the Mayoral Election Post for the February 2025 Mayor Election, the post clearly outlines the requirements to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor, which are: A declaration, having Aventura residency or own property within the Town, Having a minimum of 12 hours of active playtime in the previous 30 days, and having a minimum of 48 hours of total playtime. Evidence P-001 from the Plaintiff show that Sleepii_Sloth meets the playtime requirements needed to run for Deputy Mayor, furthermore, we can see that Sleepii_Sloth also has their Residency within Aventura (see D-001), and as such meets also requirements to run for Deputy Mayor as outlined by the Department of State.

4. The Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief 1 calls for AnimeInc and KattoC324 to be immediately appointed as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura and be declared as the winners of the February 2025 election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor for Aventura, however the voting system for the February 2025 Mayor Election was a Single Transferable Vote System, which is defined as: 8 - Single Transferrable Vote (STV) System (1) Voting Process. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. (2) Vote Threshold for Election. (a) In order to be elected, a candidate must reach a specific vote threshold, calculated by: dividing the total valid votes by the sum of the number of seats to be filled plus one, and then adding one to the result (disregarding any remainder or fraction): (total number of formal votes / (number of candidates to be elected + 1)) + 1” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/electoral-act.5428/), however as we can see, in the results of the election (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/mayor-election-february-2025.24702/), AnimeInc and KattoC324 did not receive a majority of votes.

5. Towns Information states that “Each town is required to have fair elections for at least the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.” (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-information.1532/), however, if AnimeInc and KattoC324 were to be announced as the winners of the election, the majority of voters would not have voted for them, and this would completely infringe upon the “every man a vote” principle, a fundamental element of democratic governance, and not fair, as mandated.

6. The Constitution states: “I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.” (see Government - Constitution) , and as neither RylandW or Sleepii_Sloth were not punished for a crime, they had the legal authority and right to run for the elected office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aventura.


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 23rd day of February 2025

 

Attachments

  • D-001.png
    D-001.png
    61.6 KB · Views: 27
  • D-002.png
    D-002.png
    503.1 KB · Views: 28
With that out of the way, Discovery is set for 72 hours. Extensions may be granted if mutually agreed upon by both parties.
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiffs would like to respectfully request an extension to Discovery as is allowed per Rule 4.4 (Request for Extension of Discovery) of our Court Rules and Procedures. The Plaintiffs have made an FOI request with the Department of Justice over 72 hours ago, however the information requested has not yet been granted. The Plaintiffs may wish to further engage in Discovery based on the result of this FOI request and are therefore requesting an extension.
 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, the Plaintiffs would like to respectfully request an extension to Discovery as is allowed per Rule 4.4 (Request for Extension of Discovery) of our Court Rules and Procedures. The Plaintiffs have made an FOI request with the Department of Justice over 72 hours ago, however the information requested has not yet been granted. The Plaintiffs may wish to further engage in Discovery based on the result of this FOI request and are therefore requesting an extension.
Click to expand...
Does the defense have any objection?
 
Given the defense has not objected, and in the interest of moving forward, discovery is hereby extended for another 48 hours.
 

Motion


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

Your Honor, as per Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) of our Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiffs would like to move to request information from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs request this information with urgency due to its importance for Plaintiffs ability to further engage in Discovery. The Plaintiffs would like to note that they have also previously put in a Government FOI request to receive this information, however the Department of Justice recently stated that they were unable to grant this information due to its classified nature. Because of the alleged classified nature of this information, the Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request the court to order Defendant to produce the requested information.

The Plaintiffs request a list of names of current or former Department of State employees that were responsible for the following tasks during the February 2025 Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor elections, as well as a specification of which task(s) the person was responsible for.

The tasks in question are:
- Overseeing these elections.
- Writing and/or posting messages in the Election thread under the official Department of State account.
- Checking the validity of declarations made in the Election thread.

 
INTERROGATORY:
1. In II.3 of their Answer to Complaint, the Defendant claimed that in the initial post for the February 2025 Aventura Election the Department of State clearly outlined a set of requirements. Considering that such requirements limit people's abilities to run for Mayor and Deputy Mayor in case they do not fulfill these requirements, and taking into account that by the first right of the Constitution anyone has the right to run for elected office, only subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law, Plaintiffs ask the Defendant the following:
On what law(s) did the Department of State base the requirements which they outlined in their initial post for the February 2025 Aventura election?
 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, as per Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) of our Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiffs would like to move to request information from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs request this information with urgency due to its importance for Plaintiffs ability to further engage in Discovery. The Plaintiffs would like to note that they have also previously put in a Government FOI request to receive this information, however the Department of Justice recently stated that they were unable to grant this information due to its classified nature. Because of the alleged classified nature of this information, the Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request the court to order Defendant to produce the requested information.

The Plaintiffs request a list of names of current or former Department of State employees that were responsible for the following tasks during the February 2025 Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor elections, as well as a specification of which task(s) the person was responsible for.

The tasks in question are:
- Overseeing these elections.
- Writing and/or posting messages in the Election thread under the official Department of State account.
- Checking the validity of declarations made in the Election thread.

Click to expand...

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.

 
MegaMinerM said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, Rule 6.3 of our Court Rules and Procedures states: "Objections to questions and arguments are actionable under the methods provided within the thread “Guide” Objection Guide." and the Objection Guide states the following definition for an Objection - Relevance: "Occurs when evidence presented is not relevant to the case, or a witness is asked an irrelevant question."

Defendant has not filed this objection against a piece of evidence, but instead against a Motion. The Motion against which the Defendant has objected, claiming that it presents evidence that is not relevant to the case, does not present any evidence at all. Clearly since the motion does not present any evidence to begin with, it could not possibly have presented evidence that is not relevant to the case at hand.

Furthermore It seems the Defendant is unaware of which court this is.

Your Honor, given that the Objection made by Defendant violates court procedure in multiple ways, the Plaintiffs respectfully request the court to strike this Objection.

 
Your Honor, Plaintiffs would like to respectfully request a further extension of Discovery per Rule 4.4 of our Court Rules and Procedures. There is a pending motion regarding a Request for Discovery, as well as an interrogatory that is yet to be answered. The Plaintiffs may wish to follow up on the results of the motion and interrogatory with further methods of discovery.
 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, Plaintiffs would like to respectfully request a further extension of Discovery per Rule 4.4 of our Court Rules and Procedures. There is a pending motion regarding a Request for Discovery, as well as an interrogatory that is yet to be answered. The Plaintiffs may wish to follow up on the results of the motion and interrogatory with further methods of discovery.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Discovery is extended for another 72 hours. Let the Defense be warned that failure to respond to interrogatories will be dealt with severely.


MegaMinerM said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.

Click to expand...
Overruled. See below.

gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, Rule 6.3 of our Court Rules and Procedures states: "Objections to questions and arguments are actionable under the methods provided within the thread “Guide” Objection Guide." and the Objection Guide states the following definition for an Objection - Relevance: "Occurs when evidence presented is not relevant to the case, or a witness is asked an irrelevant question."

Defendant has not filed this objection against a piece of evidence, but instead against a Motion. The Motion against which the Defendant has objected, claiming that it presents evidence that is not relevant to the case, does not present any evidence at all. Clearly since the motion does not present any evidence to begin with, it could not possibly have presented evidence that is not relevant to the case at hand.

Furthermore It seems the Defendant is unaware of which court this is.

Your Honor, given that the Objection made by Defendant violates court procedure in multiple ways, the Plaintiffs respectfully request the court to strike this Objection.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The Defense did in fact fail to use the objection properly. Their objection is struck from record.


gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, as per Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) of our Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiffs would like to move to request information from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs request this information with urgency due to its importance for Plaintiffs ability to further engage in Discovery. The Plaintiffs would like to note that they have also previously put in a Government FOI request to receive this information, however the Department of Justice recently stated that they were unable to grant this information due to its classified nature. Because of the alleged classified nature of this information, the Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request the court to order Defendant to produce the requested information.

The Plaintiffs request a list of names of current or former Department of State employees that were responsible for the following tasks during the February 2025 Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor elections, as well as a specification of which task(s) the person was responsible for.

The tasks in question are:
- Overseeing these elections.
- Writing and/or posting messages in the Election thread under the official Department of State account.
- Checking the validity of declarations made in the Election thread.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The Defense has 48 hours to present this evidence to the court or be held in contempt.
 

Motion


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

Your Honor, more than 49 hours ago the Plaintiffs have asked an Interrogatory question to the Defendant which is relevant to the case, in line with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories) of our Court Rules and Procedures. Rule 4.8 states that answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked, however the Defendant has not yet answered the Interrogatory. The Plaintiffs respectfully request the court to order the Defendant to answer the Interrogatory question, and to sanction the Defendant for failing to comply with a discovery request within the time allotted to do so under this court's rules.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, more than 49 hours ago the Plaintiffs have asked an Interrogatory question to the Defendant which is relevant to the case, in line with Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories) of our Court Rules and Procedures. Rule 4.8 states that answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked, however the Defendant has not yet answered the Interrogatory. The Plaintiffs respectfully request the court to order the Defendant to answer the Interrogatory question, and to sanction the Defendant for failing to comply with a discovery request within the time allotted to do so under this court's rules.

Click to expand...
Sustained.

I hereby find the Defense in contempt of court. The DOJ is ordered to fine the Commonwealth appropriately.

The Defense is ordered to answer the interrogatory within the next 24 hours, or face even harsher repercussions.
 
Your Honor, the Defense is currently in the process of retrieving the information, however will need an extension as it is unlikely that the information can be retrieved in this timeframe.
 
MegaMinerM said:
Your Honor, the Defense is currently in the process of retrieving the information, however will need an extension as it is unlikely that the information can be retrieved in this timeframe.
Click to expand...
Extension is hereby granted for 48 hours. Failure to meet this deadline will not end well.
 
The Defense does not have the ability nor access to share the information requested by the Plaintiff. The information requested is solely up to the discretion of the State Secretary to disclose.
 
MegaMinerM said:
The Defense does not have the ability nor access to share the information requested by the Plaintiff. The information requested is solely up to the discretion of the State Secretary to disclose.
Click to expand...
You are the legal defense to the government. Do you mean to suggest that you do not have access to your own records?

Not only did you not provide warning to the court or any response within the allotted timeframe, you failed to adhere to a court order. The Commonwealth is hereby held in contempt of court, again, for failing to adhere to a court order. Post the evidence within 24 hours.

You have failed to answer the interrogatory as well. The court will be granting 24 hours to answer the interrogatory in the interest of time. Answer the question.
The Commonwealth is hereby held in contempt, again.
 
gribble19 said:

Motion


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

Your Honor, as per Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement) of our Court Rules and Procedures, the Plaintiffs would like to move to request information from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs request this information with urgency due to its importance for Plaintiffs ability to further engage in Discovery. The Plaintiffs would like to note that they have also previously put in a Government FOI request to receive this information, however the Department of Justice recently stated that they were unable to grant this information due to its classified nature. Because of the alleged classified nature of this information, the Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request the court to order Defendant to produce the requested information.

The Plaintiffs request a list of names of current or former Department of State employees that were responsible for the following tasks during the February 2025 Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor elections, as well as a specification of which task(s) the person was responsible for.

The tasks in question are:
- Overseeing these elections.
- Writing and/or posting messages in the Election thread under the official Department of State account.
- Checking the validity of declarations made in the Election thread.

Click to expand...

Oversaw: lcn
Conducted by: McBrittle419, A__C, ASexualDinosaur

Forums Post: lcn ⁠
Discord Post: A__C ⁠

Candidate Verification: A__C, lcn
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
You are the legal defense to the government. Do you mean to suggest that you do not have access to your own records?

Not only did you not provide warning to the court or any response within the allotted timeframe, you failed to adhere to a court order. The Commonwealth is hereby held in contempt of court, again, for failing to adhere to a court order. Post the evidence within 24 hours.

You have failed to answer the interrogatory as well. The court will be granting 24 hours to answer the interrogatory in the interest of time. Answer the question.
The Commonwealth is hereby held in contempt, again.
Click to expand...
The Defense requests a 12 hour extension on the interrogatory as they are in the process of retrieving the Information.
 
MegaMinerM said:
The Defense requests a 12 hour extension on the interrogatory as they are in the process of retrieving the Information.
Click to expand...
Granted.
You have 12 hours from my post.
No more extensions will he entertained as you have had more than ample warning and time to retrieve this information.
 
gribble19 said:
INTERROGATORY:
1. In II.3 of their Answer to Complaint, the Defendant claimed that in the initial post for the February 2025 Aventura Election the Department of State clearly outlined a set of requirements. Considering that such requirements limit people's abilities to run for Mayor and Deputy Mayor in case they do not fulfill these requirements, and taking into account that by the first right of the Constitution anyone has the right to run for elected office, only subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law, Plaintiffs ask the Defendant the following:
On what law(s) did the Department of State base the requirements which they outlined in their initial post for the February 2025 Aventura election?
Click to expand...
The Aventura Constitution as well as the declarations thread was used for the candidate requirements.
 
The Commonwealth is held in contempt again, for failing to meet the extended deadline.
Their response will not be struck from record.

The Court will now be moving into Opening Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to post their opening statement. Please request an extension if necessary.
 
Your Honor, The Plaintiffs request a 24 hour extension to post their Opening Statement due to unforeseen circumstances.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

May it please the Court, Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont, this case is an example of the Executive branch failing to follow legislation and harming the very citizens it is meant to serve.

The facts of this case are clear. During the organization of the most recent Aventura Elections for the positions of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the government did not verify that the candidates for the election fulfilled the requirements as set out in statute. The Towns Rights Executive Order contains certain requirements to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor of a town. One of these requirements is that one month must have passed since the candidate’s join date. Sleepii_Sloth did not fulfill this requirement, and thus the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth should not have been allowed to run in the election.

There is clearly a process for a situation like this. The ticket of Louder_Leo and Freeze_Line did not meet one of the requirements. Upon the closing of the nomination period and the start of the election, they were informed of their ticket’s standing failure through the election thread on the forums. They were then removed from the ballot, ineligible to run in the election.

To maintain consistency and fairness, it is natural the Department of State would use the same process for all ineligible candidacies. The Government should have informed RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth of their ineligibility, and then removed them from the ballot. However, they remained on the ballot, received votes as a legitimate ticket, and were even announced as the certified winner of the election. This inconsistency is unacceptable, your Honor.

Not only is it unacceptable, it has also directly harmed the Plaintiffs. They too were running in the election and, discounting the illegitimate ticket, had the best result in the election. Had the appropriate process of removing the ineligible ticket occurred, the Plaintiffs would have won the election. Instead, they have been deprived of their democratically secured offices for over a month now.

Instead of admitting to the failures evident in this election, the Government has instead opted to throw sand in the eyes of the Court. Their argument that the requirements in the Towns Rights Executive Order should only apply for the ballots where the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are one person is clearly false. The Executive Order states, “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements.” The Order goes on to describe necessary elements that must be fulfilled to run for both positions. In running for Mayor, or for Deputy Mayor, these requirements hold. A single player running for both positions in the same ballot is entirely unreasonable, and the interpretation offered by the Defendant is absurd and goes entirely against the spirit of the law.

In their answer to the interrogatory, the Defendant admitted that the Government did not consider the Towns Rights Executive Order when determining the requirements stated on the forums. Further, it is clear that the Government used those incorrect requirements to determine who was eligible to run for office. This is a clear, harmful, and egregious error which has deprived citizens of the Commonwealth from their duly elected officials intolerably. To err is to be human, and nobody can expect perfection—but when mistakes are found, they must be promptly eliminated, lest our democracy fall into disrepair.

Thank you.

 
Thank you. The Defense now has 72 hours to post their opening statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top