Lawsuit: Adjourned FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Motion


MOTION TO RECUSE

Closing statements were issued 24 days ago.

I have asked for a verdict for three weeks and I have requested SCR intervention a week ago.

This is a violation of my client's constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial. I will be elevating the matter in 24 hours if nothing is heard.

 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
FlyingBlocks v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

  1. On October 06 2024, the Plaintiff, FlyingBlocks, was evicted from their properties, C068, C069, C070, C071; collectively known as Abbots.
  2. On November 29 2024, the Plaintiff’s former properties, Abbots, were collectively put up for auction, coinciding with DCT policy regarding eviction. The purpose of this policy is to ensure the maximum returns for the former property owner.
  3. The Plaintiff argues that this policy was introduced to replace the old policy of ‘vaulting’, and the replacement involves the property being sold using an auction, with the price of the land being the starting bid; and allowing those interested in the plot to bid upon it until a final price is reached. They argue, this is to avoid breaching Constitutional Right XV. Every citizen has a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
  4. On November 30, 2024, the DCT Secretary cancelled the eviction auction, with the highest bid being that of MrFluffy2U95, totaling 1.2 Million Redmontian Dollars. The auction was legally cancelled for the property to be used as a government store, in line with DCT policy.
  5. On December 16 2024, the DCT unfined the Plaintiff $6530, a far cry from the $1.2 million binding bid made by MrFluffy2U95. This is a breach of right XV, as the seizure was no longer reasonable, as they had been effectively cheated out of a sum 184 times more than what the DCT paid them, especially as the DCT had cancelled the auction themselves. Even if the Defendant sought to justify the use of sellback price, they still violated the Property Standards Act, as the properties’ sellback price is $90% of the plot’s listed price - not 50%, which is what the Plaintiff was remunerated. They argue that this is a breach of their fiduciary duty, topping the breach of the Plaintiff’s rights.
  6. According to the Plaintiff, the only justifiable reason for the seizure of the property to NOT breach right XV was Eminent Domain. However, the Commonwealth had failed to appropriately justify the order to the Federal Court, prior to seizing the property. No such action was taken. They further argue that a government store does not qualify as critical infrastructure, and therefore, the Eminent Domain order would ne’er have qualified, past or present. As this was not fulfilled, the Plaintiff argues that the government could not have possibly owned the plot. As DCT policy requires that auctions be held, and the proceeds to be returned to the former owner, and as such, the roundabout argument that the Plaintiff cannot expect the government to fund a cancelled auction as they forfeited the plot to the government is false.
  7. They further argue that the Government failed to ‘right this wrong’, and that the president failed to respond to concerns from within the DCT, and from outside.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
  1. The Plaintiff was legally evicted due to inactivity and negligence. The Defendant notes that the Plaintiff could have asked for an extension to increase their activity and avoid eviction.
  2. While the auction did reach a price of $1.2 million, the Defense argues that there is not a 100% guarantee that the bidder, MrFluffy2U95, could afford this bid, and that the only way to verify this is for the auction to finish. Given that the auction was cancelled, the Defense argues that $1.2 million cannot be considered as market value, regardless if bids are binding or not. They further argue that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently prove MrFluffy2U95’s capacity to fulfil their bid. They argue that numerous factors could have resulted in the bid not being fulfilled for example, the bidder could have quit, lost money, or never had the money in the first place.
  3. The Defense argues that the Plaintiff was remunerated according to the sellback price of their plot, and that once the Plaintiff was evicted, they no longer held ownership of the plot, and thus, the government was auctioning its own plots and therefore had no obligation to consider the auction prices in order to remunerate the Plaintiff. The Defense however, does recognise that an error was made in re-numerating based on sellback price, as the plugin had mistakenly displayed the 50% sellback, instead of the legally established 90% sellback price.
  4. The government did not use an Eminent Domain order, as they argue one was neer needed, as once the Plaintiff was evicted, ‘Abbots’ was no longer private property. Once the government gained ownership of the plots through eviction, it no longer mattered whether eminent domain was required.
  5. The DCT are not legal experts, and thus their concerns being expressed to the President were irrelevant, as they should have contacted the DOJ to clarify this legal matter.
  6. The eviction process was changed for realism, not to ensure maximum returns to the former owner. This was to preserve the structure on the plot for the new owner, allowing them to choose whether to keep, modify, or replace the building on the plot instead of simply demolishing it. The proceeds were to be provided to the former owner after the auction had concluded and the transaction finalised.
  7. The Plaintiff fails to specify which rights were breached, and how they were breached. Furthermore, according to the Defense, there is no way the Plaintiff’s rights could have been violated when the DCT acted within their Eviction Auction Policy, and as such, the claims for rights and power abuse are unsubstantiated.
  8. Current eviction process involves the former owner being evicted, the property being transferred to the government, the government auctioning the property and if the auction is finalised, the funds being transferred to the former owner as remuneration. The Defense argues that once the Plaintiff was lawfully evicted, it was within the government purview to proceed as they saw fit, within the Eviction Auction policy.
  9. According to The Commonwealth of Redmont . LilLethalvert [2023] FCR 86, eminent domain was not required as the owner had been legally evicted, and thus ownership surrendered to the government. They argue that while DCT policy does not explicitly state that the government can retain property, they argue that the auction policy combined with this precedent permits them to do so.
III. THE COURT OPINION
1.On the matter of the eviction process;
The court rules that FlyingBlocks was legally evicted from the collection of properties known as ‘Abbotts’. The property was put up for auction, and was subsequently cancelled with a valid reason - the plot was to be used for a government project, on order of the President. It is to be noted that bidding was halted at a bid of $1,200,000 by a MrFluffy2U95, who expressed capability to follow through with the bid. Regardless, the DCT claims to have been in line with their eviction auction policy, and as the Defense argues, cites The Commonwealth of Redmont v. LilLethalvert [2023] FCR 86 as precedent for this course of action. The court was unable to understand why the Defense chose to cite a case with no rulings as precedent for this case. With the precedent being largely irrelevant, the court finds itself at an impasse. Does the government wishing to use the land for its own projects qualify as a valid reason to cancel an eviction auction? The court notes that this reason would not have been enough to qualify for an eminent domain order - and as such is it really sufficient in this case as well? The court finds no evidence submitted by the Defendant to support this defense. As such, since the actions of the DCT extended beyond the scope as detailed in their eviction auction policy, the court must place suspicion on the eviction process undertaken for these properties.

For this matter, the Court finds that the properties were legally seized, but were mishandled. Eviction Auctions may not be cancelled for the property’s use by the government. Eminent Domain orders exist for this. Congress is welcome to propose an alternative pathway for the Department to follow in situations like these.

2. On the matter of the disputed remuneration;

The Defense has openly admitted that an error was made in the remuneration - an erroneous 50% of the plot’s listed price was refunded to the Plaintiff, as opposed to the legislated 90%. However, the Plaintiff argues that the cancelled auction had reached a bidding value of $1.2 million. As earlier cited, the bidder had expressed a capability to pay the sum of $1.2 million. However, this claim has not been sufficiently evidenced by the Plaintiff. The Court therefore feels that in the issue of remuneration, the Defendant failed to appropriately remunerate the Plaintiff, but not to the extent claimed by the Plaintiff.

3. On the matter of negligence on behalf of the President & Acting DCT Secretary UnityMaster;
The argument that concerns were to be expressed to the DOJ instead of the DCT or the President is weak, when considering the Defendant’s main defense hinges around them acting within DCT policy. If the DCT is incapable of explaining its own actions based on the policy it has claimed to have followed in this case; it could not have acted within its policy. The Defendant’s argument on this matter is frankly worthless. The Court finds that the DCT was summarily negligent when being presented with concerns from within the Department, and external concerns as well.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 1, the Federal Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff.
The following are to be executed:
  1. The DCT is to comply with the following:
    1. The properties collectively known as “Abbotts” are to be put up for eviction auction once again, within a reasonable timeframe. The auction proceedings are to be paid out to the former owner, FlyingBlocks.
    2. Eviction Auctions may not be cancelled in the case that the Government wishes to use the property. The distinction should be made prior to auctioning the property. If the Government wishes to make use of an evicted property, they accurately refund the former owner based on listed sellback price. Starting an eviction auction, in the case of the DCT, signifies a finalised decision to return the plot to circulation.
  2. The Commonwealth is hereby fined $15,000 in punitive damages for this departure from the eviction process, and for gross negligence in failing to address the matter when presented with concerns regarding said departure internally and externally, to be paid out to the Plaintiff.
  3. The Commonwealth is hereby fined $20,000 in compensatory damages for failing to appropriately compensate the Plaintiff for the eviction of their property, and for mishandling said property, breaching their official duties as civil servants, to be paid out to the Plaintiff.
  4. The Plaintiff’s legal representation, xEndeavour, is granted 30% of the cases’ value in legal fees, amounting to $10,500, to be paid by the Commonwealth.
V. NON BINDING DICTA
To both parties - well done on a brilliantly fought and articulated case. Apologies for the delay in the verdict - this case was a first in its sector, and both sides argued rather vehemently. Apart from the sheer bulk and detail of arguments, I was also faced with several issues in real life during the past couple of weeks. Thank you for patiently waiting. Best of luck to both parties in future endeavors.

The Federal Court stands adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top