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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nacho said:
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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

I will be allowing the Commonwealth to assist the town during witness testimonies since the town mayor is a witness.

However, I will sustain your objection, and hold @YeetBoy1872325 in contempt BUT will allow them to cross-examine.
 
@Alexander P. Love 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.
 
I'm sorry, let me correct myself. You have the original deadline until 7/10/2024 at 3:16 PM EST to ask questions. @Alexander P. Love
 
Yeet_Boy:
1. How do towns have the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction?
2. How does oakridge have the jurisdiction to evict Oakridge plots in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
3. Was BoopingBerry in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
 
The_Superior10:
1. Are you aware of the executive order that gives towns the ability to oversee their own building regulations?
2. Isn’t it true that Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for violations of its building code?
3. Does Oakridge law require notice to be sent to the person being evicted?
4. Isn’t it true that the DCT helped action the eviction in question in adherence with Oakridge law and the town executive order?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
The_Superior10:
1. Are you aware of the executive order that gives towns the ability to oversee their own building regulations?
2. Isn’t it true that Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for violations of its building code?
3. Does Oakridge law require notice to be sent to the person being evicted?
4. Isn’t it true that the DCT helped action the eviction in question in adherence with Oakridge law and the town executive order?
Click to expand...
1. I am aware of the executive order allows the town government to facilitate setting the town building regulations and facilitate the eviction process, not sure if this is what you mean.
2. Yes, the Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for certain violations.
3. No
4. The DCT actioned the eviction in adherence with Oakridge law and town executive order.
 
The_Superior10 said:
1. I am aware of the executive order allows the town government to facilitate setting the town building regulations and facilitate the eviction process, not sure if this is what you mean.
2. Yes, the Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for certain violations.
3. No
4. The DCT actioned the eviction in adherence with Oakridge law and town executive order.
Click to expand...
Excellent, no further questions for this witnesses.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Yeet_Boy:
1. How do towns have the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction?
2. How does oakridge have the jurisdiction to evict Oakridge plots in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
3. Was BoopingBerry in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
Click to expand...
1. They are given the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction, which in practice is the ability to set local plot regulations and request that the DCT action evictions for plots violating local regulations.
2. The Oakridge Property Standards Act is the law of the land in Oakridge, so it must be followed according to what it says. This means that if a violation requires immediate eviction, we request that the DCT evict it immediately, and if it says that a violation requires notice before eviction, then we request that the DCT does so. Oakridge has the legal jurisdiction to enforce punishments for violations, but the DCT is needed due to them having permissions to action evictions.
3. Yes
 
Excellent, no further questions for either witness, your honor. The Mayor of Oakridge will return as counsel for the rest of this case.
 
thank you.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit a closing statement.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Yeet_Boy:
1. How do towns have the power to facilitate evictions within town jurisdiction?
2. How does oakridge have the jurisdiction to evict Oakridge plots in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
3. Was BoopingBerry in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act?
Click to expand...
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.


Alexander P. Love said:
The_Superior10:
1. Are you aware of the executive order that gives towns the ability to oversee their own building regulations?
2. Isn’t it true that Oakridge law states there is immediate eviction for violations of its building code?
3. Does Oakridge law require notice to be sent to the person being evicted?
4. Isn’t it true that the DCT helped action the eviction in question in adherence with Oakridge law and the town executive order?
Click to expand...
Objection - Leading Questions

Your Honor,

We'd like to object to questions 2 and 4 to the witness on the following grounds.

The question is legit blatantly leading the witness to provide a specific answer.

We would like the question to be struck, including the response.
 
Your Honor,

We request to hold off on posting a closing response until a ruling is made on the objections filled. The wording of the closing response will depend on whether the responses remain or not.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.



Objection - Leading Questions

Your Honor,

We'd like to object to questions 2 and 4 to the witness on the following grounds.

The question is legit blatantly leading the witness to provide a specific answer.

We would like the question to be struck, including the response.
Click to expand...
Your honor, leading is allowed on cross. This is a common Court principle.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the witness is an expert in Oakridge law and politics as its Mayor and can answer about Oakridge building code specifically.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, leading is allowed on cross. This is a common Court principle.
Click to expand...
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, the witness is an expert in Oakridge law and politics as its Mayor and can answer about Oakridge building code specifically.
Click to expand...
Objection - Breach of Procedures (x2)

Your Honor,

The individual clearly indicated when they originally posted within the thread they were here to provide assistance for witness testimony:
I will be assuming co-counsel for the duration of witness testimony.
Click to expand...

The court has indicated that we are no longer in witness testimony and are in closing remarks.

The individual has further indicated previously that the Mayor will be resuming as counsel for the remainder of the case. Thus they are no longer a party in this case and should not be permitted to speak further.

We request that the comments be struck and the individual held in contempt for speaking when the court has not permitted it.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Breach of Procedures (x2)

Your Honor,

The individual clearly indicated when they originally posted within the thread they were here to provide assistance for witness testimony:


The court has indicated that we are no longer in witness testimony and are in closing remarks.

The individual has further indicated previously that the Mayor will be resuming as counsel for the remainder of the case. Thus they are no longer a party in this case and should not be permitted to speak further.

We request that the comments be struck and the individual held in contempt for speaking when the court has not permitted it.
Click to expand...
These objections are related to witness testimony.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Incompetent

Your Honor,

We object to question 1 to the witness on the following grounds.

The witness has testified to not being a Building Inspector or employed by the Department of Construction and Transportation. The witness does not have the authority to determine if a property does violate building regulations.

We would like for the question to be struck, including the response.



Objection - Leading Questions

Your Honor,

We'd like to object to questions 2 and 4 to the witness on the following grounds.

The question is legit blatantly leading the witness to provide a specific answer.

We would like the question to be struck, including the response.
Click to expand...
Overruled. The witness is the mayor, so I would like to hear their testimony.

Overruled. I will allow the leading question since it's cross-examination.
 
Nacho said:
Objection - Breach of Procedures (x2)

Your Honor,

The individual clearly indicated when they originally posted within the thread they were here to provide assistance for witness testimony:


The court has indicated that we are no longer in witness testimony and are in closing remarks.

The individual has further indicated previously that the Mayor will be resuming as counsel for the remainder of the case. Thus they are no longer a party in this case and should not be permitted to speak further.

We request that the comments be struck and the individual held in contempt for speaking when the court has not permitted it.
Click to expand...
Sustained, but I will not be holding them in contempt nor striking the statements. Mr. Love, please refrain from speaking again unless requested.
 
@Nacho 24 hours to submit your closing.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout this trial, we have been presented with two contrasting narratives. On the one hand, we have demonstrated that the town of Oakridge, led by Mayor Yeet_Boy, unjustly evicted BoopingBerry from her plot, OR-VALLEY-15, without adhering to the proper eviction processes outlined by the Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT). This eviction was conducted in violation of the DCT policies for eviction, as there was no substantiated evidence of any building regulation violations on BoopingBerry’s part published in a formal report on the forums. On the other hand, the defense has failed to present a cohesive argument or provide any substantial evidence to justify the eviction being processed in accordance with the Federal guidelines of how eviction reports are filed and actioned. While the town can make arguments about such reports, they cannot claim that the report was executed properly by the town in adherence to DCT policy as demonstrated by the Inspection Manager within the DCT.

In our opening statement, I committed to showing that BoopingBerry’s eviction was unjustified and an overreach of authority by the town's officials. Through witness testimony, we presented that the Town of Oakridge failed to follow the federally defined process through department policy, which stated that a justified eviction was action with the lack of a report being filed.

It is also important to note that the defense did not take this case seriously. They failed to meet critical deadlines and did not present an opening statement, indicating a lack of respect for this court and the judicial process. This negligence further underscores the lack of merit in their case and their inability to justify the wrongful eviction of BoopingBerry.

BoopingBerry has suffered significant financial harm due to the unjust eviction from her plot. The Town of Oakridge acted in bad faith and outside their jurisdiction, causing undue stress and financial strain on a dedicated and peace-loving resident. We'd like to ask you to recognize the injustice that has been done and to rectify it by ruling in favor of BoopingBerry. This is not just about one individual but about upholding our community's principles of fairness and justice.

Thank you, Your Honor, for your time, attention, and understanding throughout this trial. We appreciate your careful consideration of this case and trust that you will deliver a verdict that upholds justice and protects the rights of innocent residents like BoopingBerry.
 
The Defense has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

In their attempt to unjustly besmirch the Town of Oakridge and its Mayor, the Prosecution has made several critical errors in their arguments. While the Defense may have missed the opportunity to file an Opening Statement, this does not take away from their right to a fair trial. The Defendant was held in contempt, and that is sufficient.

Throughout the duration of this trial, witnesses have provided critical information establishing the following:

- Towns have the ability and authority to override Department Policies [Executive Order 15/24, Testimonies of Yeet_Boy & TheSuperior10]
- Therefore, the Oakridge Property Standards Act dictates local policies relating to Property.
- The plot limit for or-valley properties, or 'residential' properties [See: Oakridge Building Regulations] is 1
- The Plaintiff owned 2 or-valley properties, or-valley 01 & or-valley 15, thus was subsequently in violation of the Oakridge Property Standards Act. [See: Oakridge Property Standards Act]
- The Plaintiff's property was thus seized lawfully in compliance with the Oakridge Property Standards Act [See: OPSA, Testimonies of Yeet_Boy & TheSuperior10]

Keeping in mind these critical facts, the Plaintiff's claims for relief can be dismissed in quick succession:

- The claim for Punitive Damages is invalid as the witness testimonies have established that the eviction process was done in compliance with the Oakridge Property Standards Act.
- The claim for Jurisdictional Power Violation is invalid as the Town sought aid of the DCT to conduct the eviction, as established in witness testimonies.

As such, taking into consideration that the charges levied against the Defendant, the court can easily identify that the Town acted within the powers granted to them by EO 15/24, acted in line with the regulations established in the Oakridge Property Standards Act, which therefore can allow the court to come to the simple conclusion that the Plaintiff has no standing in this case.

In conclusion, the Defense urges the court to reject all prayers for relief and rule in favor of the Defense, in order to preserve the rights of the town and to prevent an illegal precedent from being established.

Thank you for your time.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge [FCR] 88

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. BoopingBerry, represented by Nacholebraa, argues that the eviction of plot OR-VALLEY-15 by the Town of Oakridge, specifically by Mayor Yeet_Boy, was carried out without proper authority and in violation of the Property Standards Act and Oakridge Building Regulations. The plaintiff asserts there was no valid basis for the eviction and that the action was a targeted attempt to inflict financial damage and harm the plaintiff's legitimacy.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Town of Oakridge, affirming the facts presented, contends that the eviction was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 5/24 - Local Governance, which grants towns the authority over plot evictions within their jurisdiction. The defense argues that the Oakridge Property Standards Act mandates immediate eviction and a fine for exceeding plot limitations. Despite not being required to, Oakridge notified BoopingBerry in advance, providing an opportunity to request an exemption, which the plaintiff did not utilize. The eviction was executed by the DCT in compliance with the established regulations and executive order.

III. THE COURT OPINION

  1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
  2. During the time of this situation, the power granted to towns was outlined in Executive Order 5/24. In this order, the President stated: “- Town building regulations (facilitated by town government)” and “- In the event that any Town legislation contradicts any Federal legislation, the Federal legislation shall apply within the jurisdiction of the Town, unless such legislation expressly [mentions] the jurisdiction. Any Federal code which is not an Act of Congress, an Executive Order, or within the Constitution, such as department policy, does not take precedence over Town legislation.” This order grants towns the ability to create building regulations and clarifies that department policy does not take precedence over town legislation.
  3. The Property Standards Act only sets standards for R Plots, C Plots, I Plots, S Plots, BM Plots, and F plots. Therefore, this act doesn’t set standards for the plots in Oakridge referred to as OR-Valley Plots, OR-C Plots, OR-SP Plots, OR-Orchard, and Themed Plots. The standard for Oakridge plots comes from the Oakridge Property Standards Act passed by the town government.
  4. The court has established that at the time of the situation, Executive Order 5/24 gave towns rights over town building regulations and that department policy doesn’t take precedence over town legislation (i.e., Oakridge Property Standards Act). Therefore, the applicable law is the Oakridge Property Standards Act, which states, “Plots beginning with 'OR-Valley' are Residential plots,” indicating that the two plots owned by the plaintiff were Residential plots. The OPSA also states, “(1) Residential plots. No player shall own more than 1 Residential plot,” and “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.”
  5. So, property standards were set, and the DCT, acting within its constitutional authority, evicted the plot as requested by the town. While the Oakridge Property Standards Act was followed correctly in this process, it raises questions of constitutional violation—not regarding the town's right to create such acts, but whether they infringed upon citizens' rights.
  6. Rights & Freedoms number fifteen states, “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” This brings us to the reasonable person test: Would a reasonable person believe an immediate eviction and fine for breaking property law to be reasonable? This court does not believe so. Not only does immediately evicting someone without prior notice or warning constitute unreasonable seizure, but the town also does not have a report system in place to notify a citizen of the issue, nor do they allow the citizen to choose which plot to give up. The town evicted the plaintiff’s plot without warning and did not let the plaintiff choose the plot to relinquish, instead taking the "better" plot.
  7. Immediate eviction of a property without reasonable prior notice is a violation of Rights & Freedoms number fifteen. When awarding damages for this case, there are two aspects to note: the rights of a citizen were violated, but the town was just following the law that had been written. Both aspects will influence the damages awarded.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 88, I rule in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer for relief.
  1. The Oakridge Property Standards Act is hereby struck from law.
  2. The plaintiff is awarded $60,000 in punitive damages as compensation for the violation of their rights.
  3. The plot OR-VALLEY-15 is to be returned to the plaintiff immediately.
  4. The plaintiff's lawyer shall receive $18,000 (30%) of the monetary award in legal fees.


The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top