Lawsuit: Dismissed Bardiya_King v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 8

[Boomsides]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Bardiya_King (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff, Bardiya_King, alleges that the Department of Interior (DOI), as an agency of the Commonwealth of Redmont, engaged in an unfair, biased, and hostile application process. This resulted in the Plaintiff being unjustly rejected from the DOI, causing emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment in Redmont.

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff: Bardiya_King, an individual who applied to the Department of Interior (DOI).
2. Defendant: The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. kvogt2340, an official associated with the DOI application process herein known as the "Defendant’s representative."

II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff applied to the DOI and was rejected.
2. The Plaintiff opened a ticket to inquire about the reasons for the rejection.
3. The Defendant’s representative responded to the ticket, providing feedback, which the Plaintiff acknowledged.
4. After two weeks, the Plaintiff reapplied to the DOI, incorporating the feedback provided in the ticket.
5. During this time, the Plaintiff “voice-rejected” (the act of using permissions to ban an individual from joining a voice chat) the Defendant’s representative from a voice chat (VC).
6. The Defendant’s representative found out about this action and confronted the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff explained their actions.
8. The Defendant’s representative responded to the explanation with the threat, “You do realize that your application is still in voting.”
9. The Plaintiff then received a second rejection from the DOI.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s representative’s actions, including threats and bias, compromised the fairness of the DOI application process breaching Part IV, §33, Point XIII of the Constitution which specifically says “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”
2. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant’s representative’s conduct violates principles of impartiality and procedural fairness which further breaches Part III §29 Paragraph Two of the constitution which declares that “Executive Offices and Officers are required to remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth.”

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following relief, as outlined by the Legal Damages Act, based on the Defendant’s wrongful conduct and its violation of constitutional principles:

1. Consequential Damages:
   • Emotional Damages: The Plaintiff requests $20,000 for emotional distress caused by the unjust rejection process and the threatening behavior of DOI officials. While no formal psychological assessment is available, the Plaintiff experienced significant emotional strain due to the unfair treatment, ongoing threats, and anxiety caused by the Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff’s own account of the emotional harm suffered, including feelings of stress and frustration, substantiates the claim that the actions of the Defendant caused substantial emotional distress, impairing the Plaintiff's ability to engage fully within Redmont.
   • Humiliation Damages: The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 for the humiliation suffered publicly in global chat and during the DOI application process. The Defendant’s representative, kvogt2340, engaged in behavior that led to the Plaintiff being publicly ridiculed, resulting in damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation within the community. This chat took place within a public space and was responsible for the embarrassment that the Plaintiff felt. This humiliation was caused by the Defendant’s treatment, which directly impacted the Plaintiff's standing in Redmont, causing embarrassment and distress.
   • Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont: The Plaintiff requests $10,000 for the loss of enjoyment in Redmont, which arose directly from the unfair DOI application process. The Plaintiff was unjustly denied an opportunity to participate in DOI-related activities, causing them to feel isolated and excluded from engaging fully with Redmont’s social and organizational activities. This loss is attributed to the biased actions of the Defendant that prevented the Plaintiff from enjoying their experience as a potential DOI member.
2. Punitive Damages:
   • The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in punitive damages to punish the Defendant for the outrageous and biased conduct of its representative, kvogt2340, and to deter such behavior in the future. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant’s actions—especially the threats and unjust rejection—constituted not only an injustice but a deliberate attempt to harm and undermine the Plaintiff’s standing within Redmont. This was outrageous conduct and must be penalized to maintain the integrity of the DOI application process and to ensure fair treatment for all citizens.
3. Legal Fees:
   • The Plaintiff requests $21,000 for reasonable legal fees incurred in pursuing this case.

Evidence:
P-001

By making this submission, the Plaintiff affirms understanding of the penalties for perjury and acknowledges that knowingly making false statements in court constitutes perjury.

DATED: This 19th day of January 2025

Boomsides
Representative of the Plaintiff, Bardiya_King

Proof of Representation:

 

[xtub12345]

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

@Freeze_Line (Attorney General) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Bardiya_King v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. 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.​

 

[Freeze_Line]

The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.

 

[xtub12345]

We will now be moving into discovery, discovery will last no longer than 3 days.

If both parties agree, discovery can end early.
Please submit all witnesses and evidence within this time period.

 

[Nacho]

Motion

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

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

Your Honor - This case boils down to one simple fact. This is an attempt to take money from the government when no actual crime has been committed. The plaintiff is claiming that the actions of any individual are linked to their role within the government at all times they have the title. The plaintiff makes insinuations that the defendant interfered with their application but fails to provide evidence of this actually happening. While everyone in the world wishes that they would never be denied a position, it is apparent that there are limited jobs within the government, and of those jobs, specific qualifications are required to be had.

What we have before the court is that the defendant is actually struggling with accepting that their skill set is unfit for a job within the Department of Interior. The positions within the Department of Interior are highly competitive in nature.

1. Violation Rule Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) - The Plaintiff alleges within their prayer for relief points that cannot be proven and fails to provide any evidence within the filing to support the claims for humiliation, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages. We argue that this point should be expanded as Plaintiff is arguing damages that cannot be calculated, and there is no valid metric to determine these damages other than Plaintiff saying they claim these damages. The plaintiff, in that instance, would be practicing heresy.

2. Violation Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) - The Plaintiff insinuated within the filing that the decision to reject the application resulted in a single entity choice on an application. The DOI Leadership team made the decision, not just the Secretary. (D-001)

3. Violation Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party) - As outlined within the rejection letter given to the Defendant at the time of the application being rejected, it stated, "On behalf of DOI leadership, we do not believe you would be the best fit," this case fails to list department leadership within the complaint. (D-010)

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff requests a response.

Motion

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

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

Your Honor - This case boils down to one simple fact. This is an attempt to take money from the government when no actual crime has been committed. The plaintiff is claiming that the actions of any individual are linked to their role within the government at all times they have the title. The plaintiff makes insinuations that the defendant interfered with their application but fails to provide evidence of this actually happening. While everyone in the world wishes that they would never be denied a position, it is apparent that there are limited jobs within the government, and of those jobs, specific qualifications are required to be had.

What we have before the court is that the defendant is actually struggling with accepting that their skill set is unfit for a job within the Department of Interior. The positions within the Department of Interior are highly competitive in nature.

1. Violation Rule Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) - The Plaintiff alleges within their prayer for relief points that cannot be proven and fails to provide any evidence within the filing to support the claims for humiliation, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages. We argue that this point should be expanded as Plaintiff is arguing damages that cannot be calculated, and there is no valid metric to determine these damages other than Plaintiff saying they claim these damages. The plaintiff, in that instance, would be practicing heresy.

2. Violation Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) - The Plaintiff insinuated within the filing that the decision to reject the application resulted in a single entity choice on an application. The DOI Leadership team made the decision, not just the Secretary. (D-001)

3. Violation Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party) - As outlined within the rejection letter given to the Defendant at the time of the application being rejected, it stated, "On behalf of DOI leadership, we do not believe you would be the best fit," this case fails to list department leadership within the complaint. (D-010)

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor - This case boils down to one simple fact. This is an attempt to take money from the government when no actual crime has been committed. The plaintiff is claiming that the actions of any individual are linked to their role within the government at all times they have the title. The plaintiff makes insinuations that the defendant interfered with their application but fails to provide evidence of this actually happening. While everyone in the world wishes that they would never be denied a position, it is apparent that there are limited jobs within the government, and of those jobs, specific qualifications are required to be had.

What we have before the court is that the defendant is actually struggling with accepting that their skill set is unfit for a job within the Department of Interior. The positions within the Department of Interior are highly competitive in nature.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

This is a bunch of random prejudicial arguments packaged into a motion to dismiss and should be struck.

 

[xtub12345]

The plaintiff requests a response.

You may respond.

 

[xtub12345]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

This is a bunch of random prejudicial arguments packaged into a motion to dismiss and should be struck.

Overruled.
The Plaintiff is allowed to submit a motion to dismiss before the beginning of opening statements.

 

[Boomsides]

Motion

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

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

Your Honor - This case boils down to one simple fact. This is an attempt to take money from the government when no actual crime has been committed. The plaintiff is claiming that the actions of any individual are linked to their role within the government at all times they have the title. The plaintiff makes insinuations that the defendant interfered with their application but fails to provide evidence of this actually happening. While everyone in the world wishes that they would never be denied a position, it is apparent that there are limited jobs within the government, and of those jobs, specific qualifications are required to be had.

What we have before the court is that the defendant is actually struggling with accepting that their skill set is unfit for a job within the Department of Interior. The positions within the Department of Interior are highly competitive in nature.

1. Violation Rule Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) - The Plaintiff alleges within their prayer for relief points that cannot be proven and fails to provide any evidence within the filing to support the claims for humiliation, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages. We argue that this point should be expanded as Plaintiff is arguing damages that cannot be calculated, and there is no valid metric to determine these damages other than Plaintiff saying they claim these damages. The plaintiff, in that instance, would be practicing heresy.

2. Violation Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) - The Plaintiff insinuated within the filing that the decision to reject the application resulted in a single entity choice on an application. The DOI Leadership team made the decision, not just the Secretary. (D-001)

3. Violation Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party) - As outlined within the rejection letter given to the Defendant at the time of the application being rejected, it stated, "On behalf of DOI leadership, we do not believe you would be the best fit," this case fails to list department leadership within the complaint. (D-010)

The plaintiff requests a response.

 

[Boomsides]

The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the complaint sufficiently alleges violations of constitutional rights and procedural fairness. The Defendant’s motion fails to acknowledge the specific claims of bias and misconduct outlined in the Plaintiff’s complaint and misrepresents the factual and legal bases for this case.

1. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Rule 5.12)

The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff’s prayer for relief lacks evidentiary support and fails to establish damages. However, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the Defendant’s actions caused emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment. These claims are supported by constitutional violations outlined in Part IV, §33 and Part III, §29 of the Constitution.

Determining the extent of damages requires a full discovery process, during which the Plaintiff can provide further evidence and documentation to substantiate the claims. It is premature to dismiss the case before discovery is complete, as this would deny the Plaintiff the opportunity to prove their allegations through the proper legal process.

Emotional and humiliation damages, while difficult to quantify, are commonly accepted as consequential damages under the Legal Damages Act. The Plaintiff’s detailed accounts substantiate these claims, and they should not be dismissed without discovery and evidentiary review.

2. Factual Error (Rule 5.14)
The Defendant argues that the rejection was a collective decision by DOI leadership, not solely the Defendant’s representative. However, the Plaintiff’s complaint does not dispute this collective decision but focuses on the biased and threatening actions of the Defendant’s representative. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges:

• Threats made by the representative during the voting process.
• Conduct that compromised the impartiality and fairness of the application process.

Additionally, the Plaintiff acknowledges that the rejection was determined by a leadership vote, which concluded with a narrow 3-2 margin against the Plaintiff's application. This demonstrates that kvogt2340’s vote was decisive in the rejection outcome. The alleged bias and misconduct of kvogt2340 directly influenced the result, validating the Plaintiff’s claims of unfairness and constitutional violations.

These allegations are independent of whether the rejection was a group decision and demonstrate a breach of constitutional impartiality requirements.

3. Failure to Include Party (Rule 5.7)
The Defendant contends that the complaint should include other members of DOI leadership. However, the Plaintiff’s claim targets the Defendant’s representative’s actions, which influenced the collective decision. The representative acted as an agent of the DOI and the Commonwealth of Redmont, making the Defendant liable. There is no procedural requirement to include every member of DOI leadership when the conduct of one representative is central to the claim.


The Plaintiff has presented a valid claim supported by factual allegations and constitutional principles. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss is unfounded, as the complaint sufficiently establishes jurisdiction, factual basis, and parties. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and allow the case to proceed to discovery.

 

[Nacho]

(Deleted due to it being unecessary)

Objection

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

Your honor,

The council has entered a comment into the case record. However, when looking at the case record, the entry has been edited and removed without the consent of the presiding judge.

We request the comment be restored and then struck from the record for proper retaining purposes.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The defense wishes to enter the following entries into evidence at this time.

We also wish to add the following individuals to our witness list:

Witnesses

• McBrittle419 (Supply Manager)
• Winterwolf (Supply Manager)
• TommyToes (Supply Manager)
• SomeHumanOnEarth (Former Deputy Secretary)
• kvog2340 (Secretary)
• xinexyax (Supply Manager)

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

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

Your honor,

The council has entered a comment into the case record. However, when looking at the case record, the entry has been edited and removed without the consent of the presiding judge.

We request the comment be restored and then struck from the record for proper retaining purposes.

Counsel simply mistakenly posted a duplicate request to respond to the motion, nothing more.

 

[ColonelKai]

I will be presiding over this case as the previous judicial officer has left the court.

Objection

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

Your honor,

The council has entered a comment into the case record. However, when looking at the case record, the entry has been edited and removed without the consent of the presiding judge.

We request the comment be restored and then struck from the record for proper retaining purposes.

This objection is sustained. The court will restore the comment and strike it from record as the integrity of the record is important. No punishment will be handed out although warn the plaintiff that no changes should be made to messages without notification or permission from the court depending on the circumstance.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

SomeHumanOnEarth (Former Deputy Secretary)

Objection

Relevance

What possible value could this person offer to the case? She has no firsthand involvement in the facts at hand.

 

[ColonelKai]

Motion

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

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

Your Honor - This case boils down to one simple fact. This is an attempt to take money from the government when no actual crime has been committed. The plaintiff is claiming that the actions of any individual are linked to their role within the government at all times they have the title. The plaintiff makes insinuations that the defendant interfered with their application but fails to provide evidence of this actually happening. While everyone in the world wishes that they would never be denied a position, it is apparent that there are limited jobs within the government, and of those jobs, specific qualifications are required to be had.

What we have before the court is that the defendant is actually struggling with accepting that their skill set is unfit for a job within the Department of Interior. The positions within the Department of Interior are highly competitive in nature.

1. Violation Rule Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction) - The Plaintiff alleges within their prayer for relief points that cannot be proven and fails to provide any evidence within the filing to support the claims for humiliation, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages. We argue that this point should be expanded as Plaintiff is arguing damages that cannot be calculated, and there is no valid metric to determine these damages other than Plaintiff saying they claim these damages. The plaintiff, in that instance, would be practicing heresy.

2. Violation Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) - The Plaintiff insinuated within the filing that the decision to reject the application resulted in a single entity choice on an application. The DOI Leadership team made the decision, not just the Secretary. (D-001)

3. Violation Rule 5.7 (Failure to Include Party) - As outlined within the rejection letter given to the Defendant at the time of the application being rejected, it stated, "On behalf of DOI leadership, we do not believe you would be the best fit," this case fails to list department leadership within the complaint. (D-010)

This motion has been denied.

1. The court believes the rule used to attempt to justify this point is misplaced or mistaken. Even if all of the statements made within were taken for granted, the truth of the argument at hand would not satisfy the requirements for the violation of rule 5.12.

2. The court does not find that the false insinuation of a potentially untrue statement constitutes a factual error.

3. The Department of Interior is a part of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Additionally, the defendant has 72 hours beginning now to file a response to complaint.

 

[Nacho]

Objection

Relevance

What possible value could this person offer to the case? She has no firsthand involvement in the facts at hand.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

The witness was a member of the decision process and provided input on the evidence we submitted within discovery. This can be seen in D-011, D-015, and D-016 - While the witness didn’t vote during the application process, the evidence does clearly show they provided input and their opinion in discussion with other members of the Department leadership team.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

Relevance

What possible value could this person offer to the case? She has no firsthand involvement in the facts at hand.

This objection is overruled.

 

[Nacho]

Motion

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

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

Your Honor - The defense has entertained this case through discovery, and the plaintiff has still failed to provide any evidence to justify their claims. It is apparent to the Commonwealth that, again, we ask that this case be struck down and dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff is merely trying to forcefully take funds from the government when no wrongdoing has been done. The plaintiff has had an opportunity to provide evidence to support their claims as well as their facts; however, they have not provided a single form of evidence to support anything they said. They didn’t even file ticket transcripts. The ONLY piece of evidence they presented to this court is an out-of-context comment made by the Secretary of the Interior when the comment wasn’t directly addressed to the plaintiff; it was made in a global channel and not directly addressed to anyone.

The burden of proof falls to that of the accusor, and as we sit, the accusor has zero evidence to even support their claim. All we have are allegations that have been quite frankly pulled out of the bin next to my desk.

1. Violation Rule Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The plaintiff has failed to provide any substantial piece of evidence connecting the allegations to the defense. The plaintiff has failed to even provide a simple ticket transcript, which they would have been sent via the ticket bot after closing the ticket.

 

[Nacho]

Answer to Complaint

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Commonwealth affirms this fact.
2. The Commonwealth neither affirms nor denies this fact, as no evidence has been submitted by the plaintiff to support this fact.
3. The Commonwealth neither affirms nor denies this fact, as no evidence has been submitted by the plaintiff to support this fact.
4. The Commonwealth partially affirms this fact.
5. The Commonwealth neither affirms nor denies this fact, as no evidence has been submitted by the plaintiff to support this fact.
6. The Commonwealth neither affirms nor denies this fact, as no evidence has been submitted by the plaintiff to support this fact.
7. The Commonwealth neither affirms nor denies this fact, as no evidence has been submitted by the plaintiff to support this fact.
8. The Commonwealth neither affirms nor denies this fact, as no evidence has been submitted by the plaintiff to support this fact.
9. The Commonwealth affirms this fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The plaintiff claims that a support ticket was opened asking for feedback on their application but has failed to provide any supporting evidence on this claim.
2. The plaintiff claims that a DOI representative responded to a DOI ticket providing feedback for an application but has failed to provide any supporting evidence.
3. The Commonwealth is considered to be a normal employer and has the ability to Hire and Dismiss employees for stated reasons.
4. The Commonwealth did not discriminate against any individual for their political belief or social status within an application process. The process in which the application was reviewed was done so under the same normal scrutiny as the original application. No evidence has been submitted to support the plaintiff’s claim.

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 11 day of February 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

I will allow the plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss before the court rules on it and we move forward to the opening statements.

 

[Nacho]

I will allow the plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss before the court rules on it and we move forward to the opening statements.

Your Honor,

We respectfully ask that a timeframe be placed in this direction to ensure the plaintiff responds in a timely manner.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

We respectfully ask that a timeframe be placed in this direction to ensure the plaintiff responds in a timely manner.

The plaintiff will respond in the next 12 hours.

 

[Nacho]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The plaintiff was not directed to speak in this instance other than to provide a response to our motion. This response was not to either and was directed towards us. Our comment and request was to the bench.

We ask the comment to be struck from the record as a breach of procedure.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

We respectfully ask that a timeframe be placed in this direction to ensure the plaintiff responds in a timely manner.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The defense is not permitted to just make an errant comment, especially when it is not a motion or other valid and allowed court procedure.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The plaintiff was not directed to speak in this instance other than to provide a response to our motion. This response was not to either and was directed towards us. Our comment and request was to the bench.

We ask the comment to be struck from the record as a breach of procedure.

You want to play that way? So can I. Consider this my valid response to your objection.

 

[Angryhamdog]

The plaintiff will respond in the next 12 hours.

Your Honor, on behalf of AlexanderLove and Dragon Law Firm, we humbly request an additional 24 hours from the time of this message to respond to the motion to dismiss due to an extreme lack of time from our lawyers. Thank you for the understanding.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. The Plaintiff applied to the DOI and was rejected.
2. The Plaintiff opened a ticket to inquire about the reasons for the rejection.
3. The Defendant’s representative responded to the ticket, providing feedback, which the Plaintiff acknowledged.
4. After two weeks, the Plaintiff reapplied to the DOI, incorporating the feedback provided in the ticket.
5. During this time, the Plaintiff “voice-rejected” (the act of using permissions to ban an individual from joining a voice chat) the Defendant’s representative from a voice chat (VC).
6. The Defendant’s representative found out about this action and confronted the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff explained their actions.
8. The Defendant’s representative responded to the explanation with the threat, “You do realize that your application is still in voting.”
9. The Plaintiff then received a second rejection from the DOI.

Let us re-examine the facts and discuss the evidence available. The defense affirms facts 1 and 9, so evidence is not needed to prove them; they are stipulated. 2, 3, 6, and 7 are irrelevant to our claims and are no reason to dismiss this case with or without proof, they merely establish context. If the defense wishes to go against the Court's mission to find the truth by contesting those points, they may. Fact 4 is provable by going to the DOI applications page; they do not need to be admitted into evidence since they are readily and publicly available already with a link. Facts 5 and 8 are established in the evidence we attached.

So, when ruling on a 5.5 MTD, your Honor, I ask you to see how we have evidence to prove the facts that substantiate our claims true. We will, over the course of this case, argue as such. The lack of evidence argument is a stock argument used to get an easy win; but we don't grossly lack evidence. We can prove our case, let us show you and then you can rule against us in verdict if you feel differently by the end.

 

[ColonelKai]

Let me start this post by apologising for the lateness of the court on the manner as I was traveling from Japan to East Coast USA, and was unavailable for the some time before, during, and after that. I am officially back on my duties.

That being said;

Your Honor,

We respectfully ask that a timeframe be placed in this direction to ensure the plaintiff responds in a timely manner.

The plaintiff will respond in the next 12 hours.

You want to play that way? So can I. Consider this my valid response to your objection.

All of these are out of order and will be struck. All objections put forward so far relating to these being Breach of Procedure are hereby sustained. That being said, the plaintiff's counsel has showed unprofessional conduct throughout their response, and as an experienced attorney, I am sure that they are aware this is not acceptable behaviour within a court case.

Motion

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

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

Your Honor - The defense has entertained this case through discovery, and the plaintiff has still failed to provide any evidence to justify their claims. It is apparent to the Commonwealth that, again, we ask that this case be struck down and dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff is merely trying to forcefully take funds from the government when no wrongdoing has been done. The plaintiff has had an opportunity to provide evidence to support their claims as well as their facts; however, they have not provided a single form of evidence to support anything they said. They didn’t even file ticket transcripts. The ONLY piece of evidence they presented to this court is an out-of-context comment made by the Secretary of the Interior when the comment wasn’t directly addressed to the plaintiff; it was made in a global channel and not directly addressed to anyone.

The burden of proof falls to that of the accusor, and as we sit, the accusor has zero evidence to even support their claim. All we have are allegations that have been quite frankly pulled out of the bin next to my desk.

1. Violation Rule Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) - The plaintiff has failed to provide any substantial piece of evidence connecting the allegations to the defense. The plaintiff has failed to even provide a simple ticket transcript, which they would have been sent via the ticket bot after closing the ticket.

Let us re-examine the facts and discuss the evidence available. The defense affirms facts 1 and 9, so evidence is not needed to prove them; they are stipulated. 2, 3, 6, and 7 are irrelevant to our claims and are no reason to dismiss this case with or without proof, they merely establish context. If the defense wishes to go against the Court's mission to find the truth by contesting those points, they may. Fact 4 is provable by going to the DOI applications page; they do not need to be admitted into evidence since they are readily and publicly available already with a link. Facts 5 and 8 are established in the evidence we attached.

So, when ruling on a 5.5 MTD, your Honor, I ask you to see how we have evidence to prove the facts that substantiate our claims true. We will, over the course of this case, argue as such. The lack of evidence argument is a stock argument used to get an easy win; but we don't grossly lack evidence. We can prove our case, let us show you and then you can rule against us in verdict if you feel differently by the end.

This motion is hereby sustained, and this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

The court finds that the plaintiff has indeed failed to file any evidence that supports their claims for relief. And the answer, which the court assumes to be the answer to the motion to dismiss as it was unlabeled, fails to address any of the claims for relief, and instead focuses on the facts.

While the plaintiff has submitted evidence to show a potential motivation for an act of malice and unjust manipulation, they failed to provide evidence that would be necessary to make the connection between the events preceding the potential unjust treatment and the treatment itself. Therefore, the court believes that the necessary evidence is lacking. The case is therefore dismissed without prejudice, as the reason for dismissal is not a ruling on the circumstances or the legal questions surrounding it, but the conduct of the lawsuit.