Lawsuit: Dismissed AWhitePerson VS Department of Justice [2022] DCR 16

[YeetBoy1872325]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AWhitePerson (Yeet_Boy representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
A new player in chat asked advice on how to purchase land in the wilderness, I jokingly replied "You gotta/have to do /pay AWhitePerson 1000", unaware of the While-Collar Crackdown Act, New Players Protection Act, as it was not mentioned in neither the tutorial, nor /laws and /rules.

I. PARTIES
1. AWhitePerson (Plaintiff)
3. Department of Justice (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On May 8, 2022, AWhitePerson was talking to a new player.
2. During the conversation, he jokingly asked the player if he could send him $1000 ingame.
3. Unfortunately, at this time, player RelaxedGV fined him $1000 for 'trying to scam a new player out of all their money'.
4. RelaxedGV admitted shortly afterwards that there was no such law about this listed in /laws.
5. AWhitePerson had been about to buy a plot in the wild almost immediately after that time.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. 15.7 Police Misconduct, for RelaxedGV's fine of $1,000 for a crime not listed on /laws.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,000 in fines returned
2. $1000 in emotional damages because of his not being able to buy his wild plot at the time he had planned, and because of the sudden absence of $1,000 in his balance.
3. $1 in lawyer fees

Evidence:

 

[JoeGamer]

This case has been moved to the District Court of Redmont due to the fact that this is a wrongful seizure claim and a civil action case asking for less than $5,000.

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of AWhitePerson v. Department of Justice. 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.​

 

[drew_hall]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONTH
MOTION TO DISMISS

AWhitePerson (Yeet_Boy representing)
PLAINTIFF

v.

Department of Justice
DEFENDANT

MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff has claimed to have been joking when telling a new player the way to obtain property was to transfer them $1,000, but this cannot be a precedent which is set. A player who is new to the server cannot be expected to distinguish between a legitimate answer to a question and a joke, nor should they be expected to. This law is designed to safeguard new players from falling victim to scams perpetrated by established players, and that encompasses falling victim to supposed ‘jokes’ which might result in financial or other losses.

2. The Plaintiff has stated in their prayers for relief that they are currently in the process of obtaining property, and, based on other claims by them, this is proving to be somewhat of a financial hardship. It happens often that players try to persuade new players to hand over their starting balance, and many new players have in the past. This being said, it's entirely possible that the Plaintiff was telling a new player this in an attempt to improve their own financial situation ahead of purchasing property, and resorted to calling it a ‘joke’ only after an officer of the Justice Department correctly dealt with the situation, resulting in a fine equal to the amount which the Plaintiff attempted scamming out of a new player.

3. RelaxedGV, the arresting officer, never once told the Plaintiff there was no such law as they have claimed, but rather linked exactly what law had been broken (shown in the evidence.) Regardless of this fact, this law is listed under /laws and is Law 10.1, or Fraud. The Plaintiff clearly had committed fraud, which the legal definition is “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation,” by lying to an individual, an individual who would have relied on that misrepresentation as a legitimate answer to their question, in an attempt to better their own financial standing.

4. In the Plaintiff’s written statement they attempt to justify their actions by claiming ignorance to the law, but since when has this ever been a justifiable reason for breaking the law? An ignorance of the law does not grant an exception to the consequences of violating such a law, and if it did what would stop anyone from claiming ignorance after breaking a law? There is no excuse to be found in this reasoning, rather if it should stand it would prove to be one of the most dangerous precedents to be set.

5. The Plaintiff has stated that the law which they violated is not listed in /laws, /rules, or the tutorial. This is simply untrue. As mentioned above, the Plaintiff was in direct violation of Law 10.1, specifically New Player Fraud as outlined in the White-Collar Crack Down Act. This law is outlined as “If a player tries to get another player to pay them their starting balance or a portion of it without any reasonable justification or any service or item in return, within the affected players first 12 hours of playtime.” It is quite obvious the Plaintiff was directly violating this law when responding to a new player how they did, and this should not be overlooked because of a supposed ignorance they had, or a supposed joke.

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 9th day of May 2022

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST OF INGAME TRIAL

View attachment 24234

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of AWhitePerson v. Department of Justice. 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.​

To further discuss this matter, the plaintiff, AWhitePerson (Yeet_Boy representing) wishes to conduct an ingame trial.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

I will be accepting the motion to dismiss

New citizen of this great commonwealth is the future of this great nation. These new citizens have been granted specific protections to prevent actions such as this from taking place. In this specific event, the plaintiff has merely been caught violating these protections. That is what the Department of Justice is charged with upholding within the very constitution that governs this land.

Ignorance of the law is not a valid argument within the courts. It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure they know what is and what is not allowed while interacting with the public in the commonwealth.

I will be asking the DOJ to charge YeetBoy1872325 with the following fines. The charges being issued to the plaintiff's council are that of the council speaking on behalf of the client. The only individual making these comments in that of the lawyer representing the client. The fines are justified within the motion to dismiss that the individual has made false claims of the officer admitting to something they never have done as well as making a false claim when the evidence the plaintiff has provided shows that a link was sent to the plaintiff by the officer showing the law did exist.


1 count of Frivolous Lawsuit equaling to $60
2 counts of Perjury equaling to $1000 + 15 minutes in jail

This case is hereby dismissed.

The District Court thanks all parties involved.

​