Lawsuit: Adjourned BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge [FCR] 88

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We request the court to freeze the plot mentioned below from being sold or held by the government in any capacity and restrict the commonwealth's ability to evict future plots in the same manner.

Emergency injunctions are designed to prevent further harm. In this case, the Town of Oakridge, in an act of misconduct, initiated an illegal eviction without proper notification or report through the Department of Construction and Transportation, as required by law.

We request that the court freeze the following plots and hold them in the possession of the DCGovernmentDCT account: OR-VALLEY-15

Due to the nature of this request, we will be filing our formal case shortly. But request the court to grant this injunction again.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Emergency Injunction is granted in its entirety. In property cases, it is important to freeze the property when there is a claim to prevent potential damage to either party.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


BoopingBerry (Nacholebraa representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On 6/11/24, BoopingBerry, my client, received a notification from the Mayor of Oakridge, Yeet_Boy, informing her that the DCT would shortly evict the plot OR-VALLEY-15 due to violating building regulations. The town of Oakridge, specifically Mayor Yeet-Boy, acted outside of their authority to act on the eviction report.

Within the Property Standards Act, including the Oakridge Building Regulation bylaws, no mention of OR-VALLEY-15 is mentioned to qualify for a violation of ‘Plot Limitations’ within the Property Standards Act or in violation of section 9 of the Oakridge Building Regulations. My client is innocent of committing any building regulations. However, I am a victim of a targeted effort to harm the legitimacy of my client. A deliberate effort to inflict financial damage to my client, an innocent and laid-back resident of Oakridge.


I. PARTIES
1. BoopingBerry
2. Yeet_Boy (Mayor of Oakridge)
3. The_Superior10 (Inspection Manager DCT)
4. Town of Oakridge

II. FACTS
1. 6/11/24 - Yeet_Boy notified BoopingBerry that their property would be evicted for violating building regulations.
2. 6/11/24 - Yeet_Boy took claim of BoopingBerry’s plot or-valley-15
3. No eviction report was filed by the Department of Construction and Transportation before the eviction was actioned.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Punitive Damages—The property was stripped from the plaintiff's possessions with the improper procedure being followed.
2. Jurisdictional Power Violation—The town of Oakridge does not have the authority to evict properties; only the Department of Construction and Transportation can.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Striking the ability for Oakridge and other local jurisdictions from being able to action eviction reports.
2. $100,000 - Punitive Damages // The town of Oakridge's conduct was outrageous regarding the out-of-nowhere removal of the plaintiff's plots without messaging them prior to the removal.
3. $25,000 in legal fees.
4. Property or-valley-15 be returned to the plaintiff

Note: We intend to upload evidence of the alleged actions within the discovery.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement.

DATED: This 11 day of June 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@YeetBoy1872325 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge. 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.​

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

estoy presente

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Please submit your response to the complaint within the specified timeframe.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

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

BoopingBerry
Plaintiff

V.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1) The defense affirms all facts

DEFENSES

1) As per Executive Order - Executive Order 5/24 - Local Governance, all towns have the authority over, "Plot evictions within town jurisdiction (facilitated by town government, actioned by the DCT)."

2) The DCT was not required to file a report for the type of eviction in this situation. As per the Oakridge Property Standards Act, there is a specific process for Plot Limits violations: (the type of regulation which BoopingBerry was in violation of) "Going over the plot limitations will result in an immediate eviction from plots until the limit is reached. Each eviction will also come with a $500 fine." The immediate eviction of the plot was made in accordance with Oakridge building regulations, as BoopingBerry was in possession of two or-valley plots (or-valley-01, and or-valley-15), which is not allowed by the Oakridge building regulations.

3) Despite not being required to, Oakridge notified the plaintiff far in advance of the eviction. After the Oakridge Property Standards act was passed, Mayor Yeet_Boy made an announcement informing every member of the Oakridge discord (which included BoopingBerry) of the new building regulations, as well as giving any player who violated the plot limits before the passing of the Oakridge Property Standards Act, the opportunity to request an exemption from their plot limit violations. BoopingBerry did not use this opportunity to request an exemption to their limits, despite being eligible to do so. Therefore, they were evicted following Oakridge's regulations.

4) Regarding the claim of the Jurisdictional Power Violation:
"Jurisdictional Power Violation—The town of Oakridge does not have the authority to evict properties; only the Department of Construction and Transportation can."

The Town of Oakridge itself did not action the eviction. Every eviction made that day was actioned by the DCT, after discussion with the department about Oakridge's new regulations and a list of current plot violations. Therefore, the Town of Oakridge still acted in accordance with the Executive Order mentioned in Defense 1.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We want to enter the following into evidence.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We would like to enter the following list of individuals to be our witnesses.

1. Yeet_Boy (Plaintiff)
2. TheSuperior (Inspection Manager in the DCT)

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Given Discovery is now over, we will be moving onto Opening Statements.
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Nacho]

your honor,

I’d like to request a two hour extension I got held up at a family event, saying goodbye to my aunt before she flew home. I may be within the next hour. I sadly don’t have access to my computer.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

granted

 

[Nacho]

Opening Statements

Your Honor,

Today, I stand to defend not just the rights of my client, BoopingBerry, but the very principles of fairness and justice in our community. BoopingBerry is a dedicated and peace-loving resident of Oakridge, who has always adhered to the rules and contributed positively to the town. On the fateful day of June 11, 2024, BoopingBerry received a notification from the Mayor of Oakridge, Yeet_Boy, informing her that the Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT) would shortly evict her from her plot, OR-VALLEY-15, citing a violation of building regulations.

Imagine the shock and confusion BoopingBerry felt, being suddenly accused of breaking rules she had meticulously followed. Imagine the distress of facing an unjust eviction from her home, a place she had invested time, effort, and money into, believing in the promise of a peaceful and fair community. This abrupt and unfounded action by the town's leadership not only threatened her residence but also her peace of mind and financial stability.

Now, let’s discuss the laws at the heart of this matter. The Property Standards Act and the Oakridge Building Regulation bylaws clearly stipulate plot limitations and building regulations. These laws maintain order and fairness in our community, ensuring everyone follows the same standards.

However, in the case of BoopingBerry, these laws have been grievously misapplied. Specifically, there is no mention of OR-VALLEY-15 violating any plot limitations outlined in the Property Standards Act or Section 9 of the Oakridge Building Regulations. BoopingBerry’s plot does not qualify for any violation, and this has been a clear oversight or deliberate misinterpretation by the town’s officials.

In this case, we will present compelling evidence that the eviction notice served to BoopingBerry was unjustified and an overreach of authority by Mayor Yeet_Boy and the DCT. We will show that this eviction was a targeted effort to harm BoopingBerry’s legitimacy and inflict financial damage upon her despite her adherence to all relevant regulations.

You will hear testimonies from witnesses who can attest to BoopingBerry’s compliance with the town’s building codes and her positive standing in the community.

Our goal in this case is to demonstrate that the actions taken by the Town of Oakridge and its Mayor were not just incorrect but unjust. We will show you that BoopingBerry is an innocent, law-abiding resident who was wrongfully targeted.

By the end of this trial, you will see that justice demands the reversal of this eviction and the restoration of BoopingBerry’s rights. We seek not only to clear her name but to send a clear message that such abuses of power will not be tolerated in our community.

Thank you for your attention, and I trust that the evidence we present will lead you to the only just conclusion: that BoopingBerry’s eviction was unfounded and must be overturned.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

Respectfully the time has come and gone and the defendant has failed to provide their response. We request a that we progress this case.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Defendant is hereby held in contempt. We will now move on to witness testimony.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@YeetBoy1872325 and @The_Superior10 is required to appear before the court in the case of BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.
​

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Im present

 

[The_Superior10]

Present

 

[Unseatedduke1]

@Nacho You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to either both witnesses or one at a time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.

 

[Nacho]

Yeet_Boy (@YeetBoy1872325 )
1. Are you currently employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation?
2. What are your relations to the Department of Construction and Transportation?


The_Superior10 (@The_Superior10 )
1. What is your current Department of Construction and Transportation role?
2. What is an Eviction Report?
3. Can you please explain the current process for evictions in detail? Specifically to the stages a Building Inspector would take to process one of these reports.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure.

Opposing counsel has missed their 24 hour deadline to post questions, and no extension requests were made. The defense asks that you charge opposing counsel with Contempt of Court, instruct the witnesses to disregard the questions asked by the opposition, and move witness testimonies into cross examination

 

[Nacho]

Response to Objection

Your Honor,

We merely got out days confused in posting our response as I, in my head, firmly believed we had 48 hours to publish the questions to the witnesses. However, now looking back I realize I was gravely mistaken. I accept the contempt charge as I fully acknowledge the tardiness to this court.

However, we strongly request 2 options: either throwing out our witnesses as a whole or allowing our questioning of the witnesses to resume. If you permit the defense to question the witnesses, it would be unfair, as the defense has seen our questions and the pivoting from which we intended to seek a response.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Sustained. Nacho is hereby held in contempt. I will allow the witnesses to answer the questions. Please respond, @YeetBoy1872325 and @The_Superior10 , within the next 24 hours.

 

[The_Superior10]

Here are my answers to the questions directed to me:

1. As of now, my roles within the Department of Construction and Transportation are both the Inspection Manager and Building Inspector positions.
2. An eviction report is a report that a Building Inspector fills on the forums to report a region to be evicted for being in violation of certain building regulations or for being under the playtime requirements set to ensure activity within the city.
3. The process starts with a Building Inspector finding a plot in violation either by themself or someone reports it to them (in that case the Inspector has to make sure the plot is really in violation) and proceeds to make sure that the region doesn't have an active report and that the owner of the plot doesn't have an exemption granted by the DCT, then the Inspector fills the report on the forums, includes evidence and specifies the eviction date depending on the type of report. When the eviction date comes the Inspection Manager checks if the report has been solved by the owner or not, if not either evicts the plot and marks it with the "Auction Required" tag or for other report reasons, pays the Inspector and marks the report with the "Staff Action" tag for staff to vault the plot and set it up for sale in-game. These are the steps that are normally taken before the eviction of a plot.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Yeet_Boy (@YeetBoy1872325 )
1. Are you currently employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation?
2. What are your relations to the Department of Construction and Transportation?


The_Superior10 (@The_Superior10 )
1. What is your current Department of Construction and Transportation role?
2. What is an Eviction Report?
3. Can you please explain the current process for evictions in detail? Specifically to the stages a Building Inspector would take to process one of these reports.

1. No.

2. As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me).

 

[Nacho]

Here are my answers to the questions directed to me:

1. As of now, my roles within the Department of Construction and Transportation are both the Inspection Manager and Building Inspector positions.
2. An eviction report is a report that a Building Inspector fills on the forums to report a region to be evicted for being in violation of certain building regulations or for being under the playtime requirements set to ensure activity within the city.
3. The process starts with a Building Inspector finding a plot in violation either by themself or someone reports it to them (in that case the Inspector has to make sure the plot is really in violation) and proceeds to make sure that the region doesn't have an active report and that the owner of the plot doesn't have an exemption granted by the DCT, then the Inspector fills the report on the forums, includes evidence and specifies the eviction date depending on the type of report. When the eviction date comes the Inspection Manager checks if the report has been solved by the owner or not, if not either evicts the plot and marks it with the "Auction Required" tag or for other report reasons, pays the Inspector and marks the report with the "Staff Action" tag for staff to vault the plot and set it up for sale in-game. These are the steps that are normally taken before the eviction of a plot.

Follow Up Questions

1. Who has the authority to report plots within the DCT?
2. Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?
3. Does DCT policy mandate that BIs need to report the plots on the forums and send mail in-game?

 

[Nacho]

1. No.

2. As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me).

Objection - Nothing Pending

Your Honor,

The answer to question 2 goes way outside the scope and the simple response of the question. We request that the response outside of the specific answer be struck.

"As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me)."

Should your honor not feel as striking just a portion of the response, we request that the whole response be struck and the witness be compelled to re-answer the question and keep it to just the scope of the question.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Sustained and struck.

 

[Nacho]

1. No.

2. As Oakridge Mayor I have very important relations to the department. Every paste the town makes must be actioned by the DCT. In the context of evictions, I have been instructed to report plots in Oakridge which violate our local building regulations, in the DCT discord server, which the DCT then evicts and transfers the plot back to the town government (which at the current time is me).

Follow Up Questions

1. You have indicated to the court that you are not a DCT employee. Can you please explain why you messaged my client on 6/11/24 informing them of an eviction of their plot? Please reference (P-005).
2. Did you or the DCT decide to evict plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?
3. What was the reason for the reporting of plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?

 

[The_Superior10]

Follow Up Questions

1. Who has the authority to report plots within the DCT?
2. Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?
3. Does DCT policy mandate that BIs need to report the plots on the forums and send mail in-game?

1. Building Inspectors are those who have the authority to file reports on the forums.
2. No, the mayor just has the authority to inform us of plots in violation (to facilitate the process) like any other citizen can report violations to a Building Inspector.
3. The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums, and sending mail is part of that. There is no policy that directly mandates reports are always needed before eviction (to my knowledge).

 

[Nacho]

1. Building Inspectors are those who have the authority to file reports on the forums.
2. No, the mayor just has the authority to inform us of plots in violation (to facilitate the process) like any other citizen can report violations to a Building Inspector.
3. The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums, and sending mail is part of that. There is no policy that directly mandates reports are always needed before eviction (to my knowledge).

Follow Up Questions

1. Does the DCT validate the reports before evicting them, or does it merely take the mayor's word and take action against them?
2. Your response to question 3 states, "The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums." However, in your second part, you state just the opposite. Can you please clarify if there is or if there is not a policy outlining that Building Inspectors are required to submit the reports to the forums.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Follow Up Questions

1. You have indicated to the court that you are not a DCT employee. Can you please explain why you messaged my client on 6/11/24 informing them of an eviction of their plot? Please reference (P-005).
2. Did you or the DCT decide to evict plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?
3. What was the reason for the reporting of plot 'OR-VALLEY-15'?

1. Because I wanted to inform the person being evicted that their plot would be evicted soon, since I had reported the plot to the DCT.
2. I am not sure what that means, if you mean deciding to report for eviction, that was me. If you mean physically actioning the eviction, that was DCT.
3. It violated the Oakridge Property Standards Act; BoopingBerry was in possession of or-valley-01 and or-valley-15, and the limit for or-valley plots (which are defined as residential plots in the Oakridge Property Standards Act) is only 1.

 

[The_Superior10]

Follow Up Questions

1. Does the DCT validate the reports before evicting them, or does it merely take the mayor's word and take action against them?
2. Your response to question 3 states, "The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums." However, in your second part, you state just the opposite. Can you please clarify if there is or if there is not a policy outlining that Building Inspectors are required to submit the reports to the forums.

1. The DCT has to always validate reports before evicting.
2. I was not sure what you meant by the question, if BIs are required to fill reports as part of their job or if a report is always required to be filled by a building inspector before eviction of a report, so I answered both. Again, it isn't clear what you mean by your question. Building Inspectors are required to submit eviction reports on the forums as it is the main part of their job, but no there isn't a policy/law (to my knowledge) directly implying a Building Inspector is always required to fill a report on the forums (sending mail being part of that) before a plot is evicted.

 

[Nacho]

1. Because I wanted to inform the person being evicted that their plot would be evicted soon, since I had reported the plot to the DCT.
2. I am not sure what that means, if you mean deciding to report for eviction, that was me. If you mean physically actioning the eviction, that was DCT.
3. It violated the Oakridge Property Standards Act; BoopingBerry was in possession of or-valley-01 and or-valley-15, and the limit for or-valley plots (which are defined as residential plots in the Oakridge Property Standards Act) is only 1.

Follow Up Questions

1. Do you message every individual being evicted that their plot will be evicted and not mention that you are not a part of the DCT?
2. Under what authority do you have the ability to determine what properties are reported versus not being reported?
3. Did the property that was evicted get adjusted in any shape or form following the eviction?
4. Does Oakridge utilize eviction reports to benefit public works programs?

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Follow Up Questions

1. Do you message every individual being evicted that their plot will be evicted and not mention that you are not a part of the DCT?
2. Under what authority do you have the ability to determine what properties are reported versus not being reported?
3. Did the property that was evicted get adjusted in any shape or form following the eviction?
4. Does Oakridge utilize eviction reports to benefit public works programs?

1. I believe so.
2. The authority of the Oakridge Property Standards Act. I report plots in violation of that law to the DCT.
3. No.
4. Unsure of what is meant by public works programs. But we don't evict plots for any reason other than violating the Oakridge Property Standards Act - if we want to build something else in place of a plot, then eminent domaining would be the necessary process.

 

[Nacho]

1. The DCT has to always validate reports before evicting.
2. I was not sure what you meant by the question, if BIs are required to fill reports as part of their job or if a report is always required to be filled by a building inspector before eviction of a report, so I answered both. Again, it isn't clear what you mean by your question. Building Inspectors are required to submit eviction reports on the forums as it is the main part of their job, but no there isn't a policy/law (to my knowledge) directly implying a Building Inspector is always required to fill a report on the forums (sending mail being part of that) before a plot is evicted.

Objection - Ambiguous/Nothing Pending (Answer to question 2)

Your Honor,

The witness's response to a simple question could have been written better. We asked if there is or is not a policy within our question. Can the court please compel the witness to answer the question? They are an Inspection Manager and assist in the drafting of department policy.

 

[Nacho]

Objection - Ambiguous/Nothing Pending (Answer to question 2)

Your Honor,

The witness's response to a simple question could have been written better. We asked if there is or is not a policy within our question. Can the court please compel the witness to answer the question? They are an Inspection Manager and assist in the drafting of department policy.

Your Honor,

I wish to note that this image failed to upload previously to the forums, but it appears to be not working. We want to enter this image pulled directly from the 'Building Inspector Guide,' a document published on the DCT information and policy page. A document outlining the process for Building Inspectors to follow. Please note it is represented as P-006

 

[Nacho]

1. The DCT has to always validate reports before evicting.
2. I was not sure what you meant by the question, if BIs are required to fill reports as part of their job or if a report is always required to be filled by a building inspector before eviction of a report, so I answered both. Again, it isn't clear what you mean by your question. Building Inspectors are required to submit eviction reports on the forums as it is the main part of their job, but no there isn't a policy/law (to my knowledge) directly implying a Building Inspector is always required to fill a report on the forums (sending mail being part of that) before a plot is evicted.

Follow Up Questions

1. Did you or another member of the DCT validate the eviction report filed by the Town of Oakridge before actioning the eviction?
2. Did the specific report being disputed get reported on the forums before the plot was evicted?
3. Did the town of Oakridge report the plot in a DCT ticket?

 

[The_Superior10]

Follow Up Questions

1. Did you or another member of the DCT validate the eviction report filed by the Town of Oakridge before actioning the eviction?
2. Did the specific report being disputed get reported on the forums before the plot was evicted?
3. Did the town of Oakridge report the plot in a DCT ticket?

1. Yes
2. No
3. No

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection - Ambiguous/Nothing Pending (Answer to question 2)

Your Honor,

The witness's response to a simple question could have been written better. We asked if there is or is not a policy within our question. Can the court please compel the witness to answer the question? They are an Inspection Manager and assist in the drafting of department policy.

Sustained. Mr. Nacho, please rewrite the question for clarity, then the witness can answer it.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Nacho, since you haven't responded or asked more questions within the last 24 hours, we will move on.

The defense now has 24 hours to ask any questions to the witnesses. Witnesses will then have 24 hours to answer, and the defense can follow up with additional questions within 24 hours after that.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Your honor, may I request an extension to find a lawyer who can question the witnesses, since I am on the witness list?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Granted. An additional 24 hours is provided to ask your first set of questions. Mr. Yeet, please note that the DOJ can help if necessary.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

This is AlexanderLove from the Department of Justice, I will be assuming co-counsel for the duration of witness testimony. First, I have a few objections to make regarding the direct examinations before we go into cross examinations fully:

Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?

Objection, your honor. Incompetent. The_Superior10 does not work for the Town of Oakridge and wouldn't be an expert about the inner workings of the town. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Does the DCT validate the reports before evicting them, or does it merely take the mayor's word and take action against them?

Objection, your honor. Compound question. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Your response to question 3 states, "The DCT policy mandates that the job of Inspectors consists of filling reports on the forums." However, in your second part, you state just the opposite. Can you please clarify if there is or if there is not a policy outlining that Building Inspectors are required to submit the reports to the forums.

Objection, your honor. Relevance. The role of building inspectors is trivial in this case as this is about the authority of Town Mayors. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Do you message every individual being evicted that their plot will be evicted and not mention that you are not a part of the DCT?

Objection, your honor. Leading and argumentative, particularly the last part. I motion to strike the question and answer.

wish to note that this image failed to upload previously to the forums, but it appears to be not working. We want to enter this image pulled directly from the 'Building Inspector Guide,' a document published on the DCT information and policy page. A document outlining the process for Building Inspectors to follow. Please note it is represented as P-006

Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. This should have been submitted in discovery. It is far too late to enter new evidence into the record especially as openings have already been delivered. I motion to strike P-006.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I would like to file a response to these objections tonight once I am home from work.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Granted.

 

[Nacho]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

Objection, your honor. Incompetent. The_Superior10 does not work for the Town of Oakridge and wouldn't be an expert about the inner workings of the town. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Your Honor, it is beyond doubt that The_Superiror10, as the Inspection Manager, is a legitimate and expert witness on the subject matter they are being questioned on. The question was straightforward and direct: "Does the Mayor of Oakridge have the authority to evict plots?" We are asking the inspection manager within the federal entity charged with the responsibility of overseeing evictions if a mayor has the authority to evict plots or not. This is not incompetence, the only incompetence here is the individual the defendant has throwing out this objection and wasting our time.

Objection, your honor. Compound question. I motion to strike the question and answer.

It's not a compound question. Your Honor, we are again asking the Inspection Manager how the DCT handles its relationship with and processing of local eviction reports.

Objection, your honor. Relevance. The role of building inspectors is trivial in this case as this is about the authority of Town Mayors. I motion to strike the question and answer.

Your Honor, this case is larger than merely the mayor's authority. It focuses on the rights of the individuals who fall victim to these bogus reports. While it's entertaining that the defendant's so-called council is attempting to frame this case as focusing solely on the town of Oakridge, we still have the opportunity to fully explain our argument before this court. This question focuses on the point that the Town does not have the authority, per the constitution, to evict plots. The question asks the Inspection Manager about the process defined by the federal institution charged by the constitution to maintain building standards, the process in which building reports are filed and carried out. So to keep it brief it is highly relevant to the subject matter of this case.

Objection, your honor. Leading and argumentative, particularly the last part. I motion to strike the question and answer.

The witnesses appeared to be acting in the capacity of a Building Inspector, messaged my client, and interjected themselves into the eviction process that was being carried out by the Department of Construction and Transportation. It is not argumentative, we are asking the witness to confirm or deny the facts of evidence we presented to the court.

Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. This should have been submitted in discovery. It is far too late to enter new evidence into the record especially as openings have already been delivered. I motion to strike P-006.

We argue that rule 4.2 does not apply to this piece of evidence, as the witnesses have technically perjured themselves. Based on their responses, we directly asked them and brought forward the policy they were contradicting. We didn't feel the need to make the inspection Manager catch a perjury charge.

In Summary...
Your Honor,

The defense raises points of rules and these objections before the court. However, the court has already progressed to cross-examination. The court historically has never permitted objections to be filed on past arguments, even when the council has changed. The State could have stepped in from the beginning. The Mayor was representing themselves during the time of witness testimony. They had the opportunity to object as well as counter to the questions we asked. Our questions were not hostile or argumentative and did not lead in any capacity. The defense attorney is simply trying to suppress my client's voice in this matter and make a mockery of this court as they historically have done in any case.

We request that the court reject the notion that the Commonwealth can represent the Town of Oakridge in this matter. While the towns are an extension of the Executive branch, they are not direct members of the cabinet and do not obtain the legal protections afforded to executive departments outlined within the constitution. The town historically has represented themselves

Furthermore, we wish to file the following objection.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The defense missed their deadline of 24 hours. While they did file an objection, it does not automatically provide them an extension as it does not prevent them from asking redirecting questions on the other various questions we asked the witnesses. Your Honor, we request the court to charge the plaintiff and their council with contempt and, furthermore, progress this case to continue past their ability to cross-examine the witnesses as they have again missed their deadline.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure.

Opposing counsel has missed their 24 hour deadline to post questions, and no extension requests were made. The defense asks that you charge opposing counsel with Contempt of Court, instruct the witnesses to disregard the questions asked by the opposition, and move witness testimonies into cross examination

We appreciate your taking the time to read all of that.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

This is AlexanderLove from the Department of Justice, I will be assuming co-counsel for the duration of witness testimony. First, I have a few objections to make regarding the direct examinations before we go into cross examinations fully:


Objection, your honor. Incompetent. The_Superior10 does not work for the Town of Oakridge and wouldn't be an expert about the inner workings of the town. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Compound question. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Relevance. The role of building inspectors is trivial in this case as this is about the authority of Town Mayors. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Leading and argumentative, particularly the last part. I motion to strike the question and answer.


Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. This should have been submitted in discovery. It is far too late to enter new evidence into the record especially as openings have already been delivered. I motion to strike P-006.

Overruled. The_Superior10 is clearly an expert witness, and their testimony is relevant to the case.

Overruled. The witness answered the question clearly and was not confused by it.

Overruled. I believe the role of the BI is pertinent to this case.

Sustained. The question and answer are struck, not for being argumentative but for being leading.

Sustained. The evidence is struck. It was not entered into discovery, and the DCT policy is already part of the case evidence.