Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanboy v. Robert [2024] DCR 9

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dartanman said:
OBJECTION
PERJURY

I have located Bindi, and she appears perfectly healthy and definitely has legs.
View attachment 42543
Click to expand...

While the quickness of the recovery and surgical speed displayed is highly suspicious, the defense council has not demonstrated knowledge of the rapid recovery and has made a statement of fact.

The court will be overruling the Perjury objection at this time.
 
The plaintiff failed to submit their opening statement within the allotted time given by the court. The court will proceed as normal. The plaintiff is further held in contempt for failing to respond in time.

The Defense can now provide its closing statements within the next 48 hours.
 
Nacho said:
The plaintiff failed to submit their opening statement within the allotted time given by the court. The court will proceed as normal. The plaintiff is further held in contempt for failing to respond in time.

The Defense can now provide its closing statements within the next 48 hours.
Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

1. The request for the Plaintiff to provide their Closing Statement was covered up by the Objection and ruling on the Objection, which was put on Page 2. This caused confusion.

2. I should not have been charged with Contempt as there was no warning beforehand. The Supreme Court has ruled, in regard to Contempt of Court, 'Warning should be given in order to effectively meet the requisite "fails to perform" of any judicial order or instruction.' (See Appeal: Accepted - FCR 63 - Contempt Appeal)
 
Dartanman said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

1. The request for the Plaintiff to provide their Closing Statement was covered up by the Objection and ruling on the Objection, which was put on Page 2. This caused confusion.

2. I should not have been charged with Contempt as there was no warning beforehand. The Supreme Court has ruled, in regard to Contempt of Court, 'Warning should be given in order to effectively meet the requisite "fails to perform" of any judicial order or instruction.' (See Appeal: Accepted - FCR 63 - Contempt Appeal)
Click to expand...

It is very hard to believe that an objection you made caused you to be confused about the timeframe the court provided you to follow. If there was confusion, a question should have been submitted to the court before the expiration of the timeframe provided. If more time was needed, an extension should have been further submitted to the court.

Furthermore, the publication of the timeframe was highlighted in blue in the court's original direction. In addition, the appeal you cite cites a contempt charge you received in error from the judge, who issued it for you 'speaking out of turn'. Missing a deadline is a stark difference from speaking out of turn.


However, I believe both parties deserve to be able to argue their case before the court. I will be granting the motion to reconsider as you should be awarded the opportunity to summarize the case you have already presented to the court. You have 24 hours from this posting to submit your closing statement to the court.

However, I will deny the reconsideration for the contempt charge as you failed to meet the court's deadline, which violates court rules and procedures.
 
I will also add on a separate note that the 24 hours granted to the plaintiff to provide their closing statement do not impede the timeframe provided to the defense. They should follow the original timeframe.
 
Thank you, your honor.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, this is a civil case. The Judicial Standards Act declares that the burden of proof in this case is a Balance of Probabilities - not Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The evidence shown in this courtroom - Robert saying "Nice try. Next time you'll think twice!" as he takes $100 out of my pocket is clearly shown in Exhibit B. The Defendant's only counters to this fact is that either:

a) Robert's actions were "an instinctive response to the perceived threat" and supposedly legal as self-defense, which has already been falsified in my Opening Statement, or
b) Something else caused the money to be taken out of my pocket when Robert approached me, "such as someone else accessing [Dartanboy's] account."

Whilst anything is possible, as previously mentioned, this case requires a Balance of Probabilities. Given Robert's threatening approach, and the words stated as he took my money, it is certainly more likely that Robert stole my money, and that meets the standard of proof in this case.
 
Your Honor,
May I request an extra 24 hours to post my closing statements due to IRL time conflicts.
 
Your honor, the Defense's time expired over 24 hours ago.
 
The court finds the lack of care for the courts time disturbing.

As the defense has failed to provide a closing statement within the time frame presented by the court including an extension the court will have to proceed without their closing statement.

The court also find the defense contempt for this failure to report.

The court will now be in recess to draft its verdict.
 
Sorry your Honor,
I thought I had submitted this but my computer is lagging out and is not sending things to the forums.

I did not realize this never got sent so im going to send it through my phone.

I accept the contempt of court charge as my technological failure falls onto my responsibility but I hope that the court can see the value in protecting my clients right to a closing statement.

Closing statement

Your Honor,

While Dartanman presents his case with confidence, it is essential to scrutinize the evidence and arguments put forth. Firstly, he asserts that Robert's actions were solely motivated by theft, disregarding any possibility of self-defense. However, self-defense is a fundamental right, and individuals have the legal authority to protect themselves when faced with perceived threats. Robert's actions could very well have been instinctive reactions to what he perceived as a threat, as suggested by the defense

Furthermore, Dartanman dismisses the possibility of someone else accessing his account and taking the money. This assertion overlooks the potential for alternative explanations and fails to consider the broader context of the situation. Without concrete evidence to definitively link Robert to the alleged theft, it would be unjust to presume his guilt based solely on conjecture.

Moreover, Dartanman's reliance on the balance of probabilities neglects the principle of innocent until proven guilty. In a civil case, the burden of proof still rests on the plaintiff to establish their case with a preponderance of evidence. While Dartanman may argue that it is more likely that Robert stole the money, likelihood alone is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.

In conclusion, Your Honor, the defense contends that Dartanman's assertions lack sufficient evidence and fail to consider alternative explanations. Without clear and convincing evidence linking Robert to the alleged theft, it would be unjust to find him guilty based on mere speculation. We urge the court to consider the principles of justice and uphold the presumption of innocence in this matter.
 
Does the plaintiff have any objection to the court accepting the delayed filed closing statement?
 
For the sake of a fair trial, I have no Objections.
 
The closing statement will be considered when drafting a verdict as the plaintiff has no objection.
 
1713051355081.png


@Dartanman can we make this a class action??
@TheCourts
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dartanboy v. Robert [2024] DCR 9

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Robert committed unconsented assault
2. A free society has no assault.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. "I didn't do it"
2. Robert is blind
3. Robert was defending himself...

III. THE COURT OPINION

Boiling the arguments down to minimum points is key when investigating this case. While this case was entertaining, I can see the potential doors it will open. It's important that we all have fun within the game and ensure we can have some entertainment outside of the normal gameplay mechanics. Robert is clearly a non-person during his day-to-day interactions with individuals.

While I feel and understand the plaintiff, I also understand that if I rule in their favor, it will merely lead to an overburden of lawsuits against the Commonwealth for a feature of the game not associated with or controlled by the government. I also understand that should a ruling occur against the commonwealth, the feature would be removed entirely.

It boils down to this: Robert is just vibing, and he said it himself; he didn't do it. The court will just have to take it as that. However, for this single instance, the staff team can give Dartanboy his money back for playing along with a hilarious court case, even though Bindi had a horrible accident midway through.

I will make the staff team provide the $100 back in compensation but won't award the other $10,000 in punitive damages as for the above-mentioned opinion on the case as a whole.

IV. DECISION
The court hereby rules in favor of the defense.

The Staff team will compensate Dartanboy with $100 for lost funds.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top