Lawsuit: Dismissed ANDREASP15 v. LucaaaaMC [2023] FCR 52

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ANDREASP15
Plaintiff

v.

LucaaaaMC
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: LucaaaaMC killed ANDREASP15's villagers costing him lots of money.


I. PARTIES
1. LucaaaaMC (Defendant)
2. ANDREASP15 (Plaintiff)
3. Lawanoesepr (Attorney, Representing ANDREASP15)
4. Pandal0gic (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. 6 villagers were murdered on a claim owned by the plaintiff, logs obtained from the Department of Justice show that the defendant had killed 6 villagers on that claim.
2. The plaintiff and the defendant had never had any prior incidents.
3. The plaintiff had bought one of the villagers for $3,000, The others had taken effort to find them in a village.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. When a player kills another player's villager, it is illegal. The defendant killed the plaintiff's villagers, therefore the defendant committed a crime.
2. The defendant had most likely had no motivation to kill the plaintiff's villagers, He most likely killed the villagers for fun.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1.$6000 in damages
2.$2500 in legal fees

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 2nd day of June, 2023

 

[lawanoesepr]

 

[Rory]

If this helps I think luca had hired bibs as his lawyer

 

[JoeGamer]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the ANDREASP15 v. Lucaaamc. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

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

 

[Bibsfi4a]

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

ANDREASP15
Plaintiff

v.

LucaaaMC (The Common law firm representing)
Defendant

The Defence counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint filed by ANDREASP15. The Defendant submits the following arguments in support of this motion:

I. LACK OF JURISDICTION

The alleged incident occurred in the wilderness, where laws and regulations are not applicable. As per the established legal principle, actions taking place outside of any regulated jurisdiction fall outside the purview of this Court.

II. NO LEGAL OBLIGATION

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant committed a crime by killing the Plaintiff's villagers. However, in the absence of any binding laws or regulations governing player interactions within the wilderness, there can be no legal obligation to refrain from such actions.

III. Evidence

Exhibit A (evidence laws do not apply in the wild)-

Exhibit B (proof of representation)-

 

[lawanoesepr]

Your honor, may respond?

 

[JoeGamer]

You may. Please respond within the next 24 hours

 

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

I. In executive order 07/21, It is stated that "All Federal laws, unless expressly codified otherwise, shall apply within the Wilderness."

II.Nowhere has it been codified that federal laws are null in the wilderness.


III. There is a legal obligation for the defendant to refrain from villager murder in the wild due to executive order 07/21.

Executive Order - Executive Order 07/21 - Jurisdiction of Law

I, hugebob23456, President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, hereby order the following clear boundaries of the Jurisdiction of Law in Redmont. (1) The Federal Government of the Commonwealth of Redmont shall have jurisdiction over all land within the server. All land may be categorized in the...

www.democracycraft.net

DATED: This 8th day of June 2023

 

[JoeGamer]

I will be accepting the motion to dismiss. I have talked with other staff members to confirm the existence of the wild being a law-free zone. Since the wild is a law-free zone, it is outside the jurisdiction of the Court to take up this matter.

This case is hereby dismissed.