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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Closing Statement

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Good afternoon, Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont.

May it please the Court,
As the Defendant’s Opening Statement is quite unclear on what it is trying to say, much of the work in figuring out what the Defendant is trying to say had to be done by the Plaintiffs themselves. For this reason we will be clarifying any assumptions we have made in interpreting the Defendant’s opening statement.

On the matter of forum activity
The Defendant in their Opening Statement states that “However one of the Plaintiffs AnimeInc does not meet the requirement of being active on the forums, invalidating him.” We assume that the Defendant refers here to one of the requirements in the Towns Rights Executive Order to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor of a town, specifically the requirement which reads: “Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.” We assume that the Defendant is trying to claim that AnimeInc had not met this requirement when declaring their intention to run for Mayor, and therefore should not have been eligible to run for this position.

The requirement “Is an active Participant in-game, on discord, and on the forums” does not specify what exactly constitutes “active” and this is therefore left up to the Department of State, or in this case the courts, to decide. It does not specify that a certain number of posts have to be made on the forums to be considered active. It does not even specify that the activity requirement is related to posting on the forums at all. If you have a forum account that you regularly log in to in order to read the latest forum posts, could that not be considered actively participating?

The Constitution states in Part IV - Rights & Freedoms in Section 33:
“The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society”
and as the first right specifies: “(1) The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.” Any requirements that exist in order to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor of a town, such as the requirement regarding forum activity in the Towns Rights EO, are limiting the right to run for elected office. We can thus conclude that these rights must be reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society, in order for them to be constitutional.

This raises the question of whether interpreting the forum's activity requirement as a requirement on the number of posts to be made would impose a reasonable and justified limit on the right to run for elections. Forum posts are mostly used by people who hold specific positions or work in specific fields. People who work in the legal field tend to make many forum posts since all court proceedings happen on the forum. Similarly, congresspeople and Department members often post on the forums for tasks specific to their functions. When not being active in court cases, or actively working in a Department or other function that requires active use of the forums, there are not that many reasons to make many posts on the forums. If a requirement on running for an election exists in such a way that only those who work in specific functions or fields would reasonably pass the requirement, is this then truly a reasonable and justified limit in a free and democratic society? Or would it be undemocratic to attempt to limit the ability to run in local elections to those who hold specific jobs or functions?

On the matter of the applicability of the requirements in the Towns Rights Executive Order
The Defendant used their Opening Statement to once again bring attention to the claim that the Towns Rights Executive Order defines requirements only for those cases where one and the same player is running for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor at the same time. The Plaintiffs' opening statement previously discussed this claim, however, it appears that Defendant in their opening statement did not actually respond to the Plaintiff’s statement on this claim, but instead simply restated what they had previously stated in their answer to complaint. We will look at this claim once more.

The Towns Rights Executive Order says: “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements: Has been 1 month since the player’s initial join date.” The Defendant claims that since the text states that the “player” must meet the requirements, as opposed to the “players” meeting the requirements, the text must be referring to a single person and therefore the Mayor and Deputy Mayor must be the same person for this requirement to be necessary. This reasoning does not make sense.

The Defendant assumes that simply because the text states that the “player” must meet the requirements it is therefore impossible for this text to apply to anything more than one single person, which is not correct. “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements” can mean that the player, any player, in either of two cases, must meet “these” requirements. The two cases are both the case where the player wishes to run for Mayor and the case where the player wishes to run for Deputy Mayor.
Instead of writing “In order to run for Mayor, and in order to run for Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements” one can write “In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements” to mean the same thing. This is a perfectly valid reading of the text as written, and makes logical and reasonable sense within the Towns Rights Executive Order, unlike the idea that requirements are meant to exist only in such a case where one person is running for both the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor at the same time.

On the first prayer for relief
The Defendant in their answer to complaint states under point 5 that announcing AnimeInc and KattoC324 as the winners of the election would be unfair, since “the majority of voters would not have voted for them”. However, looking at the election results in the election thread we see that the ticket of AnimeInc and KattoC324 received the exact same amount of 1st Preference votes as the declared winner of this election, the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth. Clearly being declared winner of this election with this amount of votes is not unfair, undemocratic, or impeding on any fundamental elements of democratic governance.

In Conclusion
AnimeInc and KattoC324 declared themselves as a ticket in the February 2025 Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor election, ran in this election, and received many more votes in this election than any other ticket legally allowed to run in this election. However, they were not declared as the winners. The Department of State failed to consider the Towns Rights Executive Order when attempting to determine the requirements for the February 2025 Aventura Mayor and Deputy Mayor election, as shown by the Defendant’s answer to the interrogatory. Because of this they’ve incorrectly and unlawfully let a ticket that did not meet the requirements stipulated by statute run in this election. Even worse, they’ve declared this ticket as the winner of the election. The Defendant has not offered any explanation for the Department of State’s lack of consideration of the Towns Rights Executive Order. It is clear that the Department of State has made a mistake in running this election. Democratic integrity must be upheld, and an unlawful ticket can not simply be allowed to be treated as the winner of an election they should have never been allowed to run in in the first place. The Plaintiffs respectfully request the court grant all prayers for relief to the Plaintiffs.

Closing Statement

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,


The plaintiffs’ case is nothing more than a desperate attempt to overturn the results of a fair, democratic election. They allege that the Commonwealth improperly certified the RylandW & Sleepii_Sloth ticket, yet throughout these proceedings, they have failed to produce any concrete evidence showing that the Government acted unlawfully, maliciously, or outside its legal authority. The Commonwealth followed proper procedure, evaluating candidates based on the information available at the time—there was no misconduct, no violation of Executive Order 15/24, and no breach of electoral law. The ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth won the election, and met all requirements as outlined in the election post. While disputed by the Plaintiff, the fact of the matter is that "In order to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the player must meet these requirements", we must take the wording literally, and not assume what it is meant to mean. If a player wants to run for both Mayor and Deputy Mayor the requirements apply.


What the plaintiffs are asking this Court to do is dangerous. If these claims were to succeed, it would set an alarming precedent: that any losing candidate can cry foul after an election, attempt to disqualify competitors retroactively, and drag the judicial system into political disputes without valid legal standing. The Plaintiff is requesting the appointment of themselves as the new Mayor and Deputy Mayor without having won the election, without even having won the majority of votes. The Plaintiff is using baseless assumptions that if the ticket of RylandW and Sleepii_Sloth hadn't run, they would've won while this simply is not the case. We know that the disputed ticket received 21 1st preference votes and 24 with 2nd preference votes, while the Plaintiff received 22. We can't assume that these 24 votes would have also gone to the Plaintiff, we have seen through this election that the majority of voters do not want the Plaintiff as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and so appointing them that position would go against the fundamental principles of democracy.


Elections are decided by the voters, not by courts ex post facto. The plaintiffs have suffered no legal injury, no deprivation of rights, and no demonstrable harm. Their demands for damages are baseless, and their accusations amount to little more than speculation.


Upholding such a frivolous claim would not only undermine public trust in Redmont’s democratic processes, but also burden this Court with meritless challenges every election cycle.


Therefore, we respectfully request that this Court dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims in full and affirm that the Commonwealth acted appropriately, lawfully, and in defense of our democratic institutions.


Thank you.