Lawsuit: In Session Devaluation Defense Collective (Class Action Group) v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 9

[juniperberries]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Devaluation Defense Collective (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Acting President lcn broke the law by cutting the price of government-sold drills and tractors by $5,000 without authority. This action overstepped Congress’s explicit authority to manage government revenue and expenditure. As a result of lcn’s illegal actions, drill owners lost net worth from the drop in value as well as rental income. The Plaintiffs are asking for compensation for these losses and for the Court to address the Acting President’s illegal and outrageous actions.

I. PARTIES
1. GnomeWhisperer (Plaintiff)
2. xSyncx (Plaintiff)
3. Smooth_AD (Plaintiff)
4. Furious721 (Plaintiff)
5. Vernicia (Plaintiff)
6. MikeOxlonger1 (Plaintiff)
7. Jabolko (Plaintiff)
8. Pepecuu (Plaintiff)
9. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Acting President lcn unilaterally requested all drill and tractor prices be lowered by $5,000.
2. Staff lowered all drill and tractor prices by $5,000 with minimal notice.
3. Drills and tractors are sold by the government.
4. Acting President lcn did not consult the citizens of Redmont about this price change nor did they notify affected parties before or after the change was made.
5. Acting President lcn’s Press Advisor admitted the price change was a “mistake”.
6. Acting President lcn’s Press Advisor admitted the drill owners lost out on net worth.
7. Acting President lcn’s Press Advisor admitted the government should have communicated with congress and citizens about this issue.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Acting President lcn does not have the power to change the prices of drills and tractors unilaterally. Because all proceeds from drills and tractors flow directly to the government, any adjustment to the price is effectively altering government revenue. As established in Part I, Section 2 of the Constitution, only Congress can “impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes”, and only Congress can “check, approve, or deny government spending”. Congress is central to all monetary transactions— they control money in, they control money out. Acting President lcn bypassed the authority of Congress, and therefore the will of the people he swore to protect, by unilaterally changing these prices. This blatant violation of separation of powers, a principle core to our Government, must not go unchecked. The President does not have the power to change the prices- only Congress does. This price change never should have gone through.
2. Explicit authority to change drill and tractor prices is not provided to the President. There are no laws establishing the executive’s discretion over these prices, and the dealership was not created through executive order in the first place. Because the President has no explicit power over these prices, and because the Congress does indeed have explicit power over government revenue and expenditure, only the Congress may alter the price of drills and tractors.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $40,000 in compensatory damages to MikeOxlonger1 to account for the depreciation in value of their two [2] iron drills and six [6] gold drills at $5,000 per drill.
2. $15,000 in compensatory damages to Pepecuu to account for the depreciation in value of their two [2] copper drills and one [1] gold drill at $5,000 per drill.
3. $20,000 in compensatory damages to GnomeWhisperer to account for the depreciation in value of their one [1] copper drill, one [1] iron drill, one [1] gold drill, and one [1] green tractor, at $5,000 per drill/tractor.
4. $5,000 in compensatory damages to xSyncx to account for the depreciation in value of their one [1] iron drill at $5,000 per drill.
5. $5,000 in compensatory damages to Furious721 to account for the depreciation in value of their one [1] copper drill at $5,000 per drill.
6. $30,000 in compensatory damages to Vernicia to account for the depreciation in value of their two [2] copper drills, two [2] iron drills and two [2] gold drills at $5,000 per drill.
7. $5,000 in compensatory damages to Smooth_AD to account for the depreciation in value of their one [1] iron drill at $5,000 per drill.
8. $10,000 in compensatory damages to Jabolko to account for the depreciation in value of their one [1] gold drill and one [1] red tractor at $5,000 per drill/tractor.
9. $65,600.40 in compensatory damages to MikeOxlonger1 to account for 60 days of lost income from drill and tractor rentals. This was calculated using the following data, given to us by MikeOxlonger1, based on necessary market-value adjustments in rental pricing:

10. $5,000 per plaintiff ($40,000 total) in punitive damages. Violating separation of powers, a keystone of our government’s functioning and Constitutional philosophy, is an outrageous action, and it should be dissuaded in the future. Given it has and will continue to have such rippling effects on the economy, the action is all the more outrageous as it disrupted the livelihood of many tradesmen.
11. $5,000 per plaintiff ($40,000 total) in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment in Redmont. The Acting President’s illegal action has caused significant economic hardship, disallowing the plaintiffs from being able to enjoy running their business as much as they have before. With the disastrous economic consequences resulting from this, all facets of the mining and farming businesses have been significantly hampered, causing a lack of motivation to continue with the profession.
12. $82,680.12 in legal fees, or 30% of the value of this case, to cover Dragon Law Firm's charge incurring the plaintiffs’ legal fees. Legal fees per plaintiff are combined here for the Court’s convenience.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: ”P-001”

Spoiler: ”P-002”

Spoiler: ”P-003”

Spoiler: ”P-004”

Spoiler: ”P-005”

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 25th day of January, 2025.

 

[Matthew100x]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Devaluation Defense Collective (Class Action Group) v. 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]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth is present.

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now enter 72 hours of Discovery.

 

[Matthew100x]

Discovery has ended, the defendant now has 72 hours to post an answer to the complaint.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Answer to Complaint

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

Devaluation Defense Collective (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the President requested the drill and tractor prices be lowered by $5,000.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that Staff lowered all drill and tractor prices by $5,000.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that drills and tractors are sold by the government.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that the President did not properly consult the citizens of Redmont.
5. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the President’s Press Advisor admitted the price change was a “mistake.”
6. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the President’s Press Advisor admitted drill owners lost net worth.
7. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the President’s Press Advisor admitted the government should have communicated with Congress and citizens about this issue.

II. DEFENCES

1. The President requested that the price of drills and tractors be lowered but did not specify a specific amount. The Plaintiff has also not provided any evidence that the President explicitly requested the prices be reduced by exactly "$5,000."
   
   
2. The Staff team had to lower the prices because the shop was an Admin Shop, meaning it uses the /give command instead of keeping and selling inventory.
   
   
3. The President did not consult the citizens primarily because the President had already received requests stating that the prices were too high.
   
   
4. The screenshot provided by the Plaintiff showcases the Press Advisor stating that the President felt regretful for the effects on the supply side of the industry. However, claiming that one side of the industry felt regret does not mean the entire price reduction was a mistake, especially when many new players were finally able to afford mining and farming equipment.
   
   
5. As also seen in the screenshot provided by the Plaintiff, the Press Advisor said, “I’d say that’s fair” and “Good point.” This does not mean the Press Advisor admitted that drill owners lost net worth. The Press Advisor simply acknowledged that the argument was fair and reasonable.
   
   
6. Furthermore, as seen in the screenshot provided by the Plaintiff, the Press Advisor stated that the President should communicate with Congress and industry workers in the future. However, nowhere in that statement did the Press Advisor claim that the President should have communicated regarding this specific issue.
   
   
7. While the Defense understands the Plaintiff’s frustration, the President acted in good faith to make it possible for new players to work in these industries. The President did not intend to harm the income of existing industry members. As stated by the Press Advisor, the President sincerely regrets any unintended consequences. However, there was no attempt to act with malice, and the Plaintiff could have reached out to the President or the Press Advisor to seek a resolution rather than pursuing legal action.

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 2 day of February 2025

 

[Matthew100x]

The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement. When the plaintiff posts their opening statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[juniperberries]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

May it please the Court,

Your Honour, opposing council, and ladies and gentlemen gathered in interest of this case, this is a case about an abuse of power that cost hardworking Redmont citizens tens of thousands of dollars. It’s about an Acting President who thought they could single handedly rewrite the economy, override the Constitution, and walk away without consequence.

Walk with me for a moment: let me take you back to when this all started.

Drill owners across Redmont were running their businesses: buying, selling, renting out their equipment—equipment they bought at a government-set price. These weren’t just tools to them; they were investments; investments backed by a stable market where prices were meant to be predictable.

Then, without warning, Acting President lcn unilaterally ordered a price cut. Just like that, $5000 slashed from every drill and tractor.

There was no debate. No congressional vote. No public notice. One Executive, one decision, and suddenly, our citizens watched their net worth drop instantly. Some lost tens of thousands of dollars. Others lost rental income and had their business models thrown into chaos. For everyone else, market prices on basic goods are going to see a drastic shift after the market’s sense of supply and demand was suddenly uprooted.

Why was this act illegal? Remember: only Congress controls government revenue. The Constitution is crystal clear; Congress has the power of the purse.
They control money in: they impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes.
They control money out: they check, approve, and deny government spending.

The Acting President bypassed all of that. This wasn’t a bill. It wasn’t even a discussion. It was economic destruction disguised as governance.

What about the government’s so-called defence? Let’s talk about it.

First, they neither confirm nor deny that lcn ordered the $5000 cut. That’s their main dodge of my claims. But here’s the problem- they admit prices were changed. They admit lcn requested the cut. Why hedge? Because they don’t want to admit lcn picked the number as well?
Does that even change anything? No. Whether lcn set the exact price or just gave the order, she overstepped.

They justify why Staff, and not lcn, had to lower the prices, but ignore how it was done with very little notice: not even a ping to our citizens, just an easily missable message in a very busy channel.

Then, they say the Acting President didn’t consult Congress because they already got complaints that the prices were too high. Taking feedback isn’t making law. If public complaints alone gave the Acting President unchecked power, why even have Congress? Public complaints go to Congress for debate, not the President for decree.

They downplay the statements made by the government’s own Press Advisor. They argue that saying “that’s fair” isn’t an admission of harm, but common sense tells us otherwise. If someone acknowledges that a group of people was financially harmed, if they say their complaints are reasonable, that’s an admission of harm. If they admit the government should have communicated better, in the context clear to everyone gathered here, it means they should have communicated better about this issue.

Finally, they fall back on good faith. They say lcn didn’t mean to cause harm, that they regret the consequences.
Your honour, regret does not make an action legal. The Constitution does not give Congress the power of the purse “unless the President really wants it”. Intentions do not and cannot override the power of the law. lcn’s actions caused tangible harm to their citizens, and now, the government wants her to walk away without accountability.

We are here today to make sure that doesn’t happen. I ask this Court to find the Commonwealth of Redmont fully liable for the losses suffered by drill and tractor owners. I ask for full compensation for every dollar they lost. And I ask this Court to send a clear message: No President, Acting or otherwise, is above the Constitution.

Thank you.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The plaintiff claims that this case is an “abuse of power.” However, the former acting president did not attempt to rewrite the economy or the constitution. All they did was request that prices be lowered for the sake of the citizens of Redmont. But let’s take a closer look.

The plaintiff's argument rests on the claim that this action was illegal because Congress “controls government revenue.” But is that truly how the plaintiff interprets it? As they themselves stated, Congress has the power to impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes, as well as to check, approve, and deny government spending. Nowhere does it say that Congress controls the prices in the admin shop. So, how can this be considered illegal?

While the plaintiff may be upset about this decision, how can they claim it was unlawful? And calling it “economic destruction” is absurd.

The plaintiff can criticize the defense’s argument all they want, but the fact remains: The President acted in the best interest of Redmont’s citizens. Sure, taking feedback is not the same as making a law, but no law forbade the president from doing this.

Just because the plaintiff doesn’t like it doesn’t make it illegal. We must base our judgment on the facts. As it stands, this matter does not concern government spending or taxation. So, we are left wondering: What exactly is the foundation of the plaintiff’s case?