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

[juniperfig]

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.

 

[juniperfig]

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?

 

[Matthew100x]

Opening statements are over. The record shows no witnesses. Thus we will be moving to closing statements. The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement. When the plaintiff posts their closing statement (or fails too after 72 hours), the defendant shall have 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[juniperfig]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

May it please the Court,

Your Honour, opposing counsel, and everyone gathered today in witness of this case about the abuse of power. Acting President lcn didn’t consult Congress. He didn’t follow the law. He just acted. And because of that unlawful decision, Redmont’s citizens lost tens of thousands of dollars in net worth and rental income.

The Defence’s argument boils down to this: as long as the President gets a staff member to implement an action, the Constitution doesn’t apply to him; he's above the law in his eyes. If that logic holds, it’s not just flawed—it’s a constitutional crisis. It would mean that any future President could bypass Congress, ignore the separation of powers, and enact sweeping changes simply by hiding behind server staff. That’s not governance—that’s authoritarianism in disguise. Staff and government are expressly separated, so mingling the two is wrong. Staff only make implementations in a government capacity on behest of the Government. The executive branch needs to take accountability for lcn's illegal request to staff.

The Commonwealth wants to have their cake and eat it too: they allege it is both a good-faith attempt on the Acting President’s part to listen to his citizens, and contradictorily claim that it is just a routine admin shop adjustment. But one can’t cherry-pick constitutional accountability. If the President’s fingerprints are on the decision, so is his legal responsibility. We trust the Court will make the right decision today and choose to uphold the Constitution. We trust the Court will choose to maintain basic levels of accountability. Otherwise, our server is in grave danger of transforming from Democracycraft to Authoritariancraft.

The Defence relies on distractions, misinterpretations of constitutional authority, and deflections. They haven’t denied the facts, because they can’t. Instead, they hide behind “good intentions” and server staff to justify a clear breach of separation of powers. Their claim that an action is legal unless explicitly prohibited is fundamentally flawed—government power must be granted, not assumed. Drills and tractors are commodities sold by the government and tangibly affect the economy and government spending/revenue, which only Congress controls.

Your Honour, this isn’t complicated: the President acted without authority, and his actions caused real harm. The Defence has no legal argument, just excuses. We ask the Court to find the Commonwealth of Redmont fully liable on all claims, to award the plaintiffs the compensation they deserve, and to send a clear message: separation of powers cannot be overridden by hiding behind staff and excuses.

Thank you.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Now that we have come this far, let’s review all of the established and proven facts of this case.

The Constitution
First, as we can clearly see in our Constitution: “Congress can impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes” and “Congress can check, approve, or deny government spending.” The plaintiff cannot simply invent additional powers for Congress and use them as valid legal arguments. The plaintiff claims that Congress controls everything regarding government spending and revenue, but the Constitution does not support this assertion. The government spends money on a variety of things, and the revenue generated from the Admin Shop does not fall under congressional control.

The plaintiff also alleges that the former acting president acted beyond the law, but how can that be the case if no law prohibits the president’s actions? Nothing here is cherry-picked, and the defense trusts that the court will uphold Redmont’s Constitution, not the plaintiff’s interpretation of it. The defense does not rely on distractions, misinterpretations, or deflections. We simply adhere to what is explicitly written in the Constitution.


Lack of Foundation
Now for the interesting part: The plaintiff seeks an enormous amount of monetary compensation but has no foundation for their claim. There are a total of eight parties listed as plaintiffs, yet the plaintiffs’ attorney has not provided a single piece of evidence proving that ANY of the plaintiffs owned drills, lost value on them, rented them out, or generated revenue from rentals. Your Honor, we cannot assume facts that are not supported by evidence.

At this point, the plaintiff could include absolutely anyone in this case, should they also be granted monetary compensation without proving ownership of drills? Right now, we do not even know if the current plaintiffs owned any drills in the first place. Just because they are part of this case does not prove that they suffered damages. How can we justify granting substantial monetary compensation to people who have not demonstrated any loss? The only alleged proof presented is some sheet that does not establish any actual ownership or losses.

Your Honor, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They included parties in this case without establishing that those parties owned drills or lost any value due to the price change. By this logic, the plaintiff might as well have included every citizen of Redmont, as there would still be no evidence that any listed plaintiffs actually had drills and suffered financial losses.

The plaintiff had ample time to provide evidence showing that the "injured parties" owned drills, rented them out, or profited from those rentals. However, the plaintiff failed to do so. Instead, they merely claimed that the plaintiffs owned a certain number of drills and lost a specific amount of value. But once again, we cannot assume facts that are not supported by evidence. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and they have failed to meet it.


Dangerous Precedent
Your Honor, granting the prayers for relief would set a dangerous precedent because there is no actual evidence proving that any of the listed plaintiffs owned drills in the first place. We cannot assume ownership. We cannot rely on verbal claims. We need tangible evidence to establish facts, not mere statements.

Additionally, we do not even know if every party listed in this case consented to be represented, as there is no exhibit proving representational consent from each plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the listed plaintiffs owned drills, and they have also failed to prove that they had consent to represent them. Once again, they could have included anyone in this lawsuit, and we would still be in the same situation—without any solid proof.

Since the plaintiff has failed to provide a single shred of evidence proving that any of the listed plaintiffs owned drills, lost money on drills, rented them out, or even consented to be represented in this case, the defense urges the court not to uphold the prayers for relief. As we stand at the conclusion of this trial, we have no supporting evidence for the plaintiff’s claim that they lost value on drills they may not have even owned.

Thus, the defense urges the court not to grant any prayers for relief and to rule in favor of the defendant.

The Commonwealth thanks everyone for their time.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

VERDICT

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

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The price change was a unilateral decision made by Acting President lcn without consulting Congress or citizens.

2. The government should have communicated with Congress and citizens about this issue, but did not.

3. The executive branch must take responsibility for the President's actions, including his illegal request to staff.

4. 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.

5. LCN’s Press Advisor admitted the price change was a “mistake,” admitted the drill owners lost out on net worth, and admitted the government should have communicated with congress and citizens about this issue.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Staff team had to lower prices because the shop was an Admin Shop, using the /give command instead of keeping and selling inventory.

2. The President had already received requests stating that the prices were too high, which is why they didn't consult with citizens.

3. The price reduction was intended to help new players afford mining and farming equipment.

4. 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.

5. The Press advisor did not admit that the drill owners lost net worth but did acknowledge that such an argument is fair, reasonable, and done in good faith.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This is a novel issue relating to the powers of the executive branch.

2. Congress does not have the power to take (or give) powers from other branches. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Thire_ v. The State [2020] FCR 21, Section 2 (Spoiler: Congressional Jurisdiction Summary) Government - Constitution).

3. Congress does have the power to “impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes.” Id.

4. Congress does have the power to “check, approve, or deny government spending.” Id.

5. Congress does have the power to “amend… government departments, including the roles and responsibilities they hold, and the positions within them. All of these… are complex changes.” Id.

6. That “[t]axes indicate an involuntary payment.” (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 75). Given that the purchases of the drills and tractors are voluntary by nature, they cannot be involuntary and thus cannot be taxes.

7. The court shall from here enter a long-form explanation of the law.

Congress has the power to make laws. These laws are what the executive branch executes, however, Congress may not impact the powers of the Cabinet. This is a tenuous balance. Congress can clearly pass laws for the Executive Branch to affect. One such instance of this for example is taxes. Taxes are a congressional power yet the collection and monitoring of the money is entrusted to the DOC. This power balance does not implicate the clause that Congress cannot give or take power from the other branches.

The issue of drills and tractors is a peculiar one. There is no enacted law written about it. That said, there is a rejected bill that did not leave the House to lower prices for drills and tractors. (see Bill: Rejected - Cheaper dealership vehicles act). There is no executive policy about it. There are references to drills and tractors on the exams and guides for the DOE. The only judicial decisions that exist on the issue have been related to contracts or collecting money to buy a drill or tractor.

The fact that the DOE has written about it does not render control of the prices of these items to the DOE. Typically, instead prices would fall to the DOC. However, the DOC’s portfolio that they “[m]aintain[] a prosperous national economic state” leaves much to be desired with whether or not this department has control over the prices of drills and tractors. (See Section 30(d)(1)(a) Government - Constitution). Instead, it would seem more likely that this power would fall under the Department of the Interior, given that they have the power of “Regulating farming practices and resource collection.” (See Section 30(h)(1)(b) Government - Constitution). I am satisfied that this limited power may be sufficient for the executive to have acted in this area of law.

While it is entirely plausible that Congress could step in and implement regulations in this area, such as the attempt at regulation in the past, Congress’s lack of law does not necessarily mean that an action taken was illegal. In fact, the very absence of law means that the action in and of itself could not be illegal, nullum crimen sine lege. Illegal means that an action is contrary to or forbidden by law. How can an action be illegal if there was no law? It cannot, ergo nullum crimen sine lege.

Now, it may be illegal for the President to override their cabinet. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Bubbarc v. President krix [2021] FCR 25). In Bubbarc v. President Krix, Bubbarc was a police sergeant working for the DOJ under Secretary Dusty with the 2021 Krix Administration. Bubbarc was directly fired by President Krix. The trial court held that direct action between the President and the plaintiff was improper and that the firing should have gone through the Secretary, however, the court did not reverse the firing because the president acted with an honest belief.
In the case at bar, the president moved unilaterally to fix prices. He did so likely without knowing that such an action was overstepping the DOI secretary. However, per the defense, the president’s actions were honest, done without any harm, and acted in good faith when changing the prices. Thus I do not find this action to be infringing on the DOI’s secretary's power.

Therefore the actions were done via executive power and were not illegal.

8. Any admissions made by the Press Secretary in this instance did not carry any harm nor illegality. There are no damages to be recovered here.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of [2025] FCR 9, this court rules in favor of the Defendant and grants no prayers for relief.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.