Lawsuit: Dismissed BuisnessOfGlass v. Department of Education and Commerce [2021] FCR 103

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

BuisnessOfGlass (Formerly Known as Richie_Z) (The Lovely Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Education and Commerce
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Plaintiff has been punitively punished by Defendant for seeking legal remedies due to Defendant's breach of its own policy. Defendant has also breached the very foundational basis of the Government of Redmont.

PARTIES I.
1. BuisnessOfGlass - Plaintiff
2. Department of Education and Commerce - Defendant
3. AlexanderLove - Counsel
4. ItzBananaMuffin - Counsel
5. Hugebob - Witness

II. FACTS
1. On August 17th, 2021, Plaintiff opened a ticket with Defendant and applied to receive a grant for $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars) to purchase a property.
2. Defendant did not respond until September 8th, which is a total of twenty-two days, when Defendant had a policy of a maximum wait time of 7 days for response to tickets.
3. On September 8th, Defendant had denied Plaintiff's application without any reason given and without cause.
4. Defendant had explained later that Plaintiff's grant application had been denied due to Plaintiff stating that he would seek legal remedies to the situation since there had been no response to Plaintiff's ticket for a grant application. This is a punitive denial of a grant with no basis in policy or law and violates the separation of powers between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch of Government. This also violates Section IV, Article XIII of the Constitution by discriminating against Plaintiff unfairly due to his plead for a remedy to the outrageous delay in ticket response from Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Defendant breached its own policy of a maximum of 7 days to respond to a ticket by a margin of fifteen days, and a total of twenty-two days, which is over triple the amount of time for a response.
2. Defendant punitively denied Plaintiff's grant application on the basis of Plaintiff's suggestion of legal remedy to the situation which is an egregious abuse of power and violation of Plaintiff's rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
3. Due to Fact 4, the DEC, representing the Executive Branch of Government and the President of Redmont, interfered with the possibility of Judicial overview of the situation and a remedy thereof. This is a breach of the separation of powers as outlined in our Constitution.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. $15,000 (fifteen thousand dollars) in punitive damages
2. $2,000 (two-thousand dollars) in legal fees

WITNESSES:
1. Hugebob

EVIDENCE:
Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 2.

Affirmation of representation by The Lovely Law Firm:

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 16th day of October, 2021.

 

[Wuutie]

THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant,
The Attorney General , is required to appear before the court in the case of BuisnessOfGlass v. Department of Education and Commerce. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​

 

[nnmc]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

BusinessOfGlass
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Education and Commerce
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. This case is highly frivolous. The prayers for relief total $17000 while the original grant request was only for $10000. It is completely frivolous to ask for $7000 extra dollars.

2. The plaintiff is making inaccurate claims in their lawsuit. They claim that they were rejected for a grant solely because they threatened legal action. The truth is that the plaintiff had zero change of being approved for a grant, because the plaintiff’s business was not a DEC-registered business at the time of the grant request. If you click the link, you can see the business only became DEC-registered in October which is after the grant request was made. https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/glassimus.7876/

3. Furthermore, even though the DEC did reject the grant request, the DEC was very generous in granting a waiver to the waiting period for re-application. This allowed the plaintiff to re-apply immediately without any need to wait, thus resolving any disputes about being rejected. The plaintiff has frivolously decided to sue, even though he is allowed to re-apply and his initial application was doomed to fail regardless because his business was not registered.

DATED: This 19 day of October 2021

 

[Banana]

REBUTTAL

Your Honor, there is nothing described in the motion to dismiss that is not either inaccurate or lacking substance. I will address all claims of frivolity in the order they were presented.

In response to the Defense's claims of frivolity;

1. The amount requested in the Prayers for Relief is not grounds for declaring something frivolous. The Court has the power to amend any requests as necessary. Thus, the case should move on irrespective of what is listed in the Prayer for Relief. This has been established already and is not grounds for dismissal.

2. The link provided does not prove any level of approval from the DEC at a specific timeframe, only forum recognition. As this request for a grant was filed through Discord, the specific dates on the forum post are unnecessary. I will elaborate further. At the time, only approved companies could even apply for grants through the DEC's Discord. I will also direct the Court's attention to the fact that the forum post was started on July 26th. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that the company was operating without DEC knowledge for roughly two and a half months. Finally, the thread's tag was changed from "Pending" to "Business" around July 28, the same timeframe in which the in-game company was created.

3. While the DEC may have waived the normal waiting period, there was still a 22-day, or over three week, lapse in time from the creation of the grant application to when it was answered. The DEC should be held accountable for the unacceptable wait time to even see if the grant was accepted. Had it been declined at a more timely pace, the Plaintiff could have re-applied sooner and additionally avoided the anxiety and stress of being dangled on a string by the DEC.

Your Honor, there are no valid grounds for dismissal, and we respectfully ask that this motion to dismiss be rejected.

 

[Wuutie]

Can the Plaintiff prove his points with evidence of the prefix being changed and so acceptance of the company.

 

[Banana]

Your Honor, I have reached out to the former Secretary of the DEC, HugeBob, for a comment on when it may have been changed, as there is currently no screenshot evidence. If, however the court would accept the fact that in the DEC Discord, where affairs were primarily conducted, the Plaintiff was a registered business owner as a reasonable source of proof, I would be happy to furnish a screenshot from current Secretary Thirtystone to that effect.

 

[Wuutie]

That would be fine for me.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor and opposing counsel, I would like to point out that without an audit log that timestamps when the business obtained this Discord role, it is impossible to use the DEC Discord to prove when exactly the business became registered.

 

[Banana]

On the contrary, the request for a grant is timestamped with a date. Your Honor, if you would direct your attention to the grant request you can see the ticket was opened on the 17th of August. This proves that the business was verified by the DEC and had obtained approval. This is confirmed by current secretary Thirtystone in the following screenshot. Thirtystone was also the head economist at the time, so he clearly knows what he is talking about here. Thus, the Plaintiff had the approval of the DEC to be acting as a business at the time when the grant was requested, and the Plaintiff had the right to a reasonable wait time for his ticket.

Exhibit 1 (Marked up to show dates clearly)

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, may I make a brief response? Because at the time the DEC was beginning to transition to a hybrid forums-Discord system, there are some clarifications I would like to make in response to the opposing counsel’s claims.

 

[Banana]

Objection, on grounds of procedure.
I move that the Motion to Dismiss be addressed without further delays by the Defense. All relevant evidence the Court asked for has already been provided, and there is no such thing as a rebuttal to a rebuttal. The Defense should not be allowed to make counterclaims to my counterclaims, as that would lead us in loops. It is important that this trial move forward without being hindered further. Thank you.

 

[Wuutie]

I would like to hear what nnmc has to say. This is relevant to the lawsuit and might be important. So objection overruled and nnmc your brief response is granted. After that I can decide on the motion.

 

[nnmc]

As I have recently been briefed on the DEC’s new grant procedure, Richie did not follow the DECs new procedure which resulted in these issues. He was supposed to take the 1st step on the forums and then go open a Discord ticket. Richie skipped a step by just opening a ticket, and since this procedure was new, DEC staff erroneously did not close the ticket and inform Richie that the forums were the first step. The lack of a forum post for the grant request resulted in DEC not being able to verify the application and thus all of the aforementioned issues and long waiting time. To apologize and resolve the issue, the DEC Secretary waived the waiting period for reapplication. Plaintiff was offered more than enough assistance by the DEC, but Plaintiff decided to sue immediately. Despite this amicable solution, the plaintiff is frivolously suing.

 

[Banana]

Your Honor, given that the Defense was allowed to make a counterclaim to mine, may I also make a brief statement responding to these new claims?

 

[nnmc]

These aren’t new claims or arguments. These are just new facts that I have recently been briefed on, and then repeating the old claim that this case is frivolous. Unless the plaintiff has any new facts to present, I believe that the plaintiff should not be allowed a brief response.

(This post was edited to correct an error where i mixed up the words plaintiff and defense)

 

[Wuutie]

Are there new facts/evidence to show?

 

[Banana]

No, but I would like to point out that the Defense has claimed there was a requirement at the time of August 17 obliging grant requests to be first filed on the forums. This is completely different from the claims in the motion to dismiss, and it is not backed up by any evidence of such a policy, at the date. Can the Defense furnish any proof of such a policy existing at that time?

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor and opposing counsel, see these photos

 

[Wuutie]

If I need more info, I will let you know but for now. For now I will review all the things said and decide on the motion to dismiss. Any comments on the matter without asking me will be fined.

 

[Wuutie]

Verdict

I am going to grant the motion to dismiss because of the following reason.
A procedure was taken in action when the Department of Education and Commerce announced its reform. The Department has from then the power to form their outcome on a grant application. So a breach of procedure can result in a rejection of the Department on the request. When the procedure was set up and after that, the application came through and was wrongly filed, which was in this case. The Department can reject the grant application and no misconduct by the Department could have been taken place. If the procedure wasn't introduced before the application, Plaintiff was right and possible misconduct could have taken place. To conclude, a breach of the procedure is a valid reason for the rejection of an application.

I do want to outline that the answer time of the DEC was very low and did not hit the maximum 7-day marker. Anyways this is not enough to let this lawsuit continue but I do want to point out that this has to improve. I ask the DEC to search for a method to have a better service to the citizens.

I thank each party for their time and effort put in this case.
This case is now dismissed.