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

[End]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

FlyingBlocks
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains that the Defendant has illegally acquired property of a citizen.

06 October 2024 - Plot owner FlyingBlocks was evicted from their properties (C068, C069, C070, and C071) which formed the land of the landmark Abbots' Building (Abbotts or the Property). https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c069-oct-5-2024.23439/

29 November 2024 - The properties were put up for auction in line with DCT Policy. As you can see, the purpose of the policy is to maximise the amount of return for the member who has been evicted from their plot.

Since the vaulting process was removed, the way this is achieved is through eviction auctions where the property is sold for market price. This is a reasonable and robust approach to satisfying both the realities of maintaining plot circulation for inactive players and also ensuring that players are projected from unreasonable seizure in line with their constitutional right:

XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

30 October 2024 - The DCT Secretary advised that the auction had been cancelled two days later after bids had been made amounting to $1,200,000. Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Thereby establishing that this property was worth in excess of 1.2 million dollars, and that the President ordered the cancelling of an the auction for use as a Government store.

The DCT is within it's rights to cancel auctions and that is not the argument that this case is making - this case seeks to hold the government accountable for how it wrongly, unjustly, and unfairly remunerated the plot owner.

18 December 2024 - The Defendant remunerates the plot owner a measly sum of $6,530 for a property with a market price of over $1.2 million dollars.

You honour, I could just rest my case here as the above sentence is telling enough that what has occurred is wrongful seizure and unjust.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Justice is society's concept of fairness (government definition from legal exams). Your honour, do you think remunerating a plot owner $6,530 is fair after cancelling an auction which would have landed the plot owner in excess of 184 times the amount you paid them?

The DCT auction process is simple:

1. Property owner reported as inactive.
2. Property owner given notice of pending eviction
3. Property owner evicted and the DCT takes carriage of property.
4. DCT auctions the property off to a new player, providing all proceeds to the evicted plot owner.

However, in this case what we have seen is:

1. Property owner reported as inactive.
2. Property owner given notice of pending eviction.
3. Property owner evicted and the DCT takes carriage of property.
4. DCT eminent domains property for own use and provides sellback price in compensation.

There is no other way to describe or legally justify this seizure of land being anything other than Eminent Domain.

In accordance with the Reveille Eminent Domain Act, the Government needs to satisfy the following for exercising seizure of land:

(1) Eminent domain may only be issued if:
(a) The property is essential for building necessary infrastructure, such as roads, walkways, medical facilities, police stations, and government buildings or; Does not apply
(b) The property obstructs the development of urban renewal or infrastructure projects Does not apply

Eminent domain does not allow for the Government to just take a building on the cheap if it likes the building.

Lets just pretend that this isn't going to stop us, and talk about the process of Eminent Domain:

In accordance with the Reveille Eminent Domain Act, the Government needs to satisfy the following for exercising seizure of land:

5 - Federal Court Process
(1) If the Government decides to pursue eminent domain, they must provide criterial justification for its necessity. No justification was provided to the court and the defendant was not contacted about an offer. The plot was seized illegally without an Eminent Domain Order.

Your honour, this is plain and simple. It's an open and shut case. The Government, regardless of how it spins this scenario, is in the wrong.

The Government has wrongfully seized the property/value of this property and violated the rights of the complainant.

The Government seized the property without legal authority it can't just take what it pleases without consulting the property owner.

The Government has not me the requirements for eminent domain as a supply shop is not critical infrastructure - especially when we already have a supply depot.

The Government has refused to right its wrong.

I. PARTIES
1. FlyingBlocks
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Complainant's property Abbotts was seized by the government.
2. The Market price of the plot was at least $1.2 million dollars
3. The Complainant was not contacted about a reasonable offer
4. The government did not have an eminent domain order to execute the seizure of the property.
5. The President has ignored calls from within the DCT that this action was illegal and that the plot owner was not remunerated justly.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Unreasonable Remuneration
2. Wrongful Seizure

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1.1 Return of the Property to the Complainant

Or alternatively,

1.2. Market price ($1.2 million) +66% to account for any future bidding which was paused ($2,000,000).
2. 20% in punitive damages due to the Commonwealth's outrageous behaviour in unlawfully and wrongfully seizing the property, setting a dangerous precedent for the breaching of property owners' rights.
5 - Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) “Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from 4 - Compensatory Damage as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.

3. 30% in legal fees in accordance with the Legal Damages Act

9 - Legal Fees
(1) Definition:
(a) Legal fees are most commonly used to describe the fees paid to the attorney for his/her time and effort.
(2) Award:
(a) Can be awarded either directly to the lawyer or to the client.
(b) Is dependent on the payment structure used within a retainer. A lawyer must declare their legal fees in their retainer and what percentage, if any, is to be kept by their client.
(c) Is capped at $5,000 or 30% of the overall case’s value whichever is higher.

Retainer

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 2nd day of January 2025

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, this case ought to be dismissed as the Plaintiff named in this case, xEndeavour, lacks standing to be the plaintiff in a case where the alleged damage is to another source.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, this case ought to be dismissed as the Plaintiff named in this case, xEndeavour, lacks standing to be the plaintiff in a case where the alleged damage is to another source.
View attachment 50764

Motion Denied.

The Plaintiff has already rectified what appears to have been an error in case filing.

Furthermore, consider this your first and final warning for speaking out of turn. Summons are yet to be issued.

 

[End]

My apologies, I will amend the filing to reflect the correct complainant!

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of FlyingBlocs v. The 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.

 

[End]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INJUNCTION REQUEST

Requesting that the Federal Court place an injunction on the use or sale of the above properties.

The Complainant requests that the properties remain frozen until the end of the case noting the significant value associated with the case.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Upon review of the merits of the case, the Court has determined to accept the emergency injunction.

The properties of c068,c069,c070 & c071, more commonly known as 'Abbotts' are to be frozen. These properties may not be modified, transferred or sold.

 

[Freeze_Line]

The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.

Thank you. Discovery is set to end 72 hours from this message, or whenever both parties to agree to end it early.

 

[End]

Interrogatory: Defendant

1. Under what authority did you seize the property?

2. What does the Government assess the property's market value to be? Noting that it was under auction for a bid of $1.2 million when the Government cancelled the auction.

3. Why was the Complainant provided with $6,530 remuneration for the property?

4. What was the Government's planned use for the property?

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

2. What does the Government assess the property's market value to be? Noting that it was under auction for a bid of $1.2 million when the Government cancelled the auction.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

The question about the property's market value assumes that the $1.2 million bid at auction reliably indicates the market value, which cannot be confirmed without the auction being finalized and the transfer completed. Any assessment would be speculative.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

4. What was the Government's planned use for the property?

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVENCE

The government’s planned use for the property is not relevant to the case. This case concerns the alleged unlawful seizure of the property, not its subsequent use.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

The question about the property's market value assumes that the $1.2 million bid at auction reliably indicates the market value, which cannot be confirmed without the auction being finalized and the transfer completed. Any assessment would be speculative.

Sustained.

While the question makes it clear that 1.2 million was a value obtained from a speculative bid.,The question asks the value the government gives the property, which as the defense has pointed out, cannot be assigned without a finalised public transaction.

Prosecution may either rephrase the question or drop this line of questioning.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVENCE

The government’s planned use for the property is not relevant to the case. This case concerns the alleged unlawful seizure of the property, not its subsequent use.

Overruled.

The planned use of the property determines whether it qualifies for seizure under the Eminent Domain Act or not.

Please answer the question.

 

[End]

1. Under what authority did you seize the property?

2. Does the Government believe that the value of the property is only $6530?

3. Why was the Complainant provided with $6,530 remuneration for the property?

4. What was the Government's planned use for the property?

 

[Freeze_Line]

1. Under what authority did you seize the property?

2. Does the Government believe that the value of the property is only $6530?

3. Why was the Complainant provided with $6,530 remuneration for the property?

4. What was the Government's planned use for the property?

1. The DCT followed its due process, and the complainant was lawfully evicted.

2. The in-game value of the property is $13,060, $6,530 is the selling payback.

3. As no auction was completed, the complainant received the selling payback of $6,530.

4. The Government planned to use the property as a government shop.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Interrogatory: Plaintiff

1. The plaintiff received a notice and had 7 days to respond, challenge, or request an extension to the eviction. Why didn't they?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The time allotted for discovery has now elapsed. The Defense now has 48 hours to enter a plea.

 

[End]

The time allotted for discovery has now elapsed. The Defense now has 48 hours to enter a plea.

Your honour, this is a civil action.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your honour, this is a civil action.

Apologies, I misread the case filing. The Defense has 48 hours from this post to file an answer to complaint.

apologies for the inconvenience, i am working from mobile.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, the plaintiff has failed to provide an answer to my interrogatory within 48 hours.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honor, the plaintiff has failed to provide an answer to my interrogatory within 48 hours.

The Court recognises the failure on the plaintiff’s behalf. The timer for an answer to complaint/motion to dismiss is halted for 12 hours. The Plaintiff is to respond to the interrogatory posed by the Defense, or be held in contempt.

 

[End]

1. The plaintiff received a notice and had 7 days to respond, challenge, or request an extension to the eviction. Why didn't they?

My client became busy over the end of year period with IRL commitments and wasn't available to login and see that their building was up for eviction.

My client is an otherwise active member of the nation and has been for a long time. We all have IRL demands that we need to balance from time to time.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Answer to Complaint

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

FlyingBlocks
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense DISPUTES that the Complainant's property, Abbotts, was unlawfully seized by the government.
2. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DISPUTES that the Market price of the plot was at least $1.2 million dollars.
3. The Defense AFFIRMS that the Complainant was not contacted about an offer.
4. The Defense AFFIRMS that the government did not have an eminent domain order.
5. The Defense DISPUTES that the President has ignored calls from within the DCT.

II. DEFENCES
1. The property was evicted due to the plaintiff’s inactivity and negligence. The DCT followed its lawful due process, and the plaintiff was evicted. The plaintiff also received reminders and could have requested an extension. By ignoring the reminders and failing to request an extension, the plaintiff was evicted and thereby surrendered the plots to the government.

2. While the auction of the plots reached $1.2 million before being canceled, it is not 100% guaranteed that the highest bidder would have been able to afford the purchase. We cannot estimate a market value based on bids that never went through or were not verified. The only way to determine market value is after the transaction has been completed, which, in this case, did not happen. Although all auctioneers are bound to their bids, there have been instances where the highest bidder did not have sufficient funds or forgot to transfer the money into their balance. Therefore, we cannot base the market value on the speculation that the highest bid would have been honored, as we cannot be certain of that. According to the law, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff was awarded a selling payback for the plots since the auction was canceled, and the government was the landlord. The government was auctioning its own plots, and they were no longer the plaintiffs after the eviction. The plaintiff cannot expect the government to fund an auction that was canceled, and for this reason, the plaintiff was not contacted about an offer.

4. The government did not have an eminent domain order because one was never needed. Eminent domain is defined as “the power of the government to take private property and put it to public use, following the payment of just compensation.”And as stated in the Reveille Eminent Domain Act, Section 4(a): “If the property owner fails to respond after a period of 72 hours the Department of Construction and Transportation may pursue eminent domain of the owned plot through a court order.” The plaintiff was not the property owner after the eviction, so the government did not need eminent domain because the properties were already theirs. The government was simply auctioning its own plots, as was within its rights, and canceled the auction, as was also within its rights.

5. The Defense disputes that the President has ignored calls from within the DCT, and the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of such claims. Additionally, the DCT are not legal experts. The DCT members in question could have contacted the DOJ, but they did not.


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 9 day of January 2025

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Thank you for the timely post.

The prosecution now has 48 hours to post their opening statement. Please request a time extension if necessary.

 

[End]

Opening Statement

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

FlyingBlocks
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your honour, this is not a trivial dispute over auction bids or technicalities; this is about the government’s blatant abuse of power and its failure to fulfill its moral and legal obligations. The Government is here today to tell you why they should be allowed to steal $1,200,000+ worth of property from one of it's citizens for next to nothing.

The defence seeks to justify it's actions through arguments which ignore key facts and legal principles. I'll address each of these points directly below:

Eviction
The government's responsibility in managing evicted properties is to ensure fair compensation to the property owner, not to seize property for its own benefit. This is why the auction system was implemented when the vaulting system was removed—to maximize the value of the property for the owner. The auction process exists to ensure that evicted property owners are compensated fairly, based on the true market value of their property. The government’s failure to adhere to this duty undermines its own processes and violates the plaintiff's rights.

The defense’s failure to acknowledge this process is telling. The auction was not only canceled but was set to yield over $1.2 million for the plaintiff. Yet, instead of honoring that market value, the government chose to cancel and ignore the well-established auction process and awarded only $6,530 in compensation for a property it knew to be far more valuable that that. The government’s failure to act in good faith, by denying the plaintiff both the opportunity for a fair sale and proper compensation, is the crux of this case. This was not a failure of process—it was an unjust taking of property that the Government intervened in it's own processes for, with no regard for the rights of the property owner.

Underpaid
Even if we entertain the defense’s argument that the plot owner was compensated fairly, the government paid only $6,530 for a property with a market value of over $1.2 million—just 50% of the sellback price.

Under the defense's own reasoning, they have underpaid for the property in violating the terms outlined in the Property Standards Act for a sellback price of 90%. The Defence has underpaid for the property, this is an established fact - just how much they have underpaid is the argument.

Market Value
The Defence claiming that a market value cannot be established through an auction without payment is perhaps one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen in my career.

An auction provides the most reliable representation of market value—what the market is willing to pay. The bids placed in the auction reflect this value, and there is no legal reason to dismiss these bids. The idea that bidders may not have the funds is irrelevant, as they are legally bound to their bids. The government’s own rules ensure bidders must demonstrate financial capacity, and if there were concerns, they should have been addressed at the time of the auction by the government.

The auction established a de facto market value of at least $1,200,000. Given the pace and interest in the bidding, it is highly likely the auction would have exceeded this amount. The defence’s attempt to undermine and cast doubt in the validity of these bids does not change the fact that the plaintiff was entitled to that value and that the bidder is bound by their bid.

The government has extraordinarily failed in its fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the property for the property owner. Instead, it has sabotaged the property owner's interests and canceled the auction. The Government has acted in its own interests over the property owner's which is a gross breach of trust and moral obligation. This was certainly a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the plaintiff’s rights.

Ownership of the Plots
The government’s assertion that it was 'auctioning its own plots' contradicts its own policy. The Department of Construction's Eviction Policy says that when a property is evicted, the government is required to auction the property and return the proceeds to the original owner. By failing to do so, the government violated its own rules and misrepresented its role in the process.

Builds and plots which are evicted will be left on plots for realism and auctioned off by the government. All funds from sold plots are returned to the player who originally owned the plot.

The original owner is the owner before the buyer, the owner who was evicted.

The Government is downplaying it's actions by claiming ownership of the property, even after it underpaid according to it's own reasoning and arguments. So, if we follow the government's line of argument, can they even own the plot if they didn't pay the correct sellback price required by law? The Government can't keep it's story straight and is contradicting it's own long-standing policies and legal arguments from this case.

The Government does not come into ownership of the plots, it holds them administratively to enable their sale. In order to for the government to come into ownership of any plot, it needs to purchase them - either by agreement or through eminent domain, where they still purchase the property for a price agreed by the court. At no point has the Government purchased this property, and if it did own the property, why do all auction proceeds go to the 'former' owner?

Wrongful Seizure
The Reveille Eminent Domain Act sets clear conditions under which the government can seize private property, none of which apply here. The property was not taken for public use, nor was there any legal order for its seizure. The government simply took the property at a fraction of its value without any legal basis consistent with the Act.
(a) The property is essential for building necessary infrastructure, such as roads, walkways, medical facilities, police stations, and government buildings or;
(b) The property obstructs the development of urban renewal or infrastructure projects
A government shop is not an essential piece of infrastructure.

A government shop is not being obstructed by this property, it is one of 1000s of plots available to fulfill this purpose, including the town hall down the street which is partially empty.

The government has failed to provide any valid legal justification for seizing the property, making this an unlawful act of seizure.

President's Negligence
The reality is that the government, and in particular the President, has failed to rectify its unlawful actions. The President’s failure to even address and or respond to the concerns raised speaks volumes about the government’s disregard for property rights.

With your permission your honour, I will provide evidence of the President ignoring concerns raised over the issue of not paying the property owner the correct amount in the week prior to this case.


The plaintiff seeks justice, not only for the morally absent, unlawful, and objectively unfair actions, but to correct the precedent that such conduct by a Government is tolerated.

If Justice is society's concept of fairness your honour, I ask you, do you think the goverment has acted fairly? Moral obligations aside, the Government has openly admitted to violating the 25th right:

XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

By seizing the property without proper compensation or legal authority, the government has violated it's own policies, the plaintiff’s constitutional right to protection against unreasonable seizure, and abrogated it's fiduciary and moral obligations to a citizen in favour of it's own political agenda.

It is only just that the court finds in favor of the plaintiff and grants the relief sought.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Thank you for your statement.

Regarding the request to submit additional evidence outside of discovery regarding presidential/ secretarial negligence, which could affect the severity of punitive damages if the court were to rule in favour of the plaintiff, the court will grant a 12 hour window to submit this evidence.

This should have been done during discovery, but given the severity and size of claims, a one-time submission is granted.

Following the submission of said evidence, the defense shall have a period of 24 hours to review the new evidence, before a subsequent 48 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[End]

Messages on the 28th of December through 3rd of Jan:

Messages on the 2nd of Jan:

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Messages on the 28th of December through 3rd of Jan:

View attachment 50908

Messages on the 2nd of Jan:

View attachment 50907

Objection

Hearsay

The plaintiff is offering out of court statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which cannot be cross examined and therefore are hearsay in any sane legal system.

 

[End]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

It's a verifiable comment within a government and public discord and hardly anything close to hearsay. This is nothing but an attempt at trying to get damaging evidence thrown out.

This is evidence of the President's failure to reply to concerns both within the executive and the public domain. If its no longer suitable, what does the Defence propose the format it be provided?

There is years of precedent which support this type of evidence being submitted in support of an act or omission.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

It's a verifiable comment within a government and public discord and hardly anything close to hearsay. This is nothing but an attempt at trying to get damaging evidence thrown out.

This is evidence of the President's failure to reply to concerns both within the executive and the public domain. If its no longer suitable, what does the Defence propose the format it be provided?

There is years of precedent which support this type of evidence being submitted in support of an act or omission.

If the objection would be overruled, the defense requests a response to this to address why it is still hearsay even if it is verifiable.

 

[End]

@Dr_Eksplosive objection waiting your consideration.

Further, in the interests of a speedy trial we ask that the Defence is not allowed to drag this trial out further by requesting an extension to their opening statement.

They will have had three days to prepare an opening statement and I suspect they will use the objection which has little relevance to the rest of the case as a means to extend their time.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, while the plaintiff claims that the government has abused its power, they have not provided any evidence demonstrating that the actions of the DCT were outside the scope of their authority. The plaintiff boldly alleges that the government’s actions were outrageous and illegal, yet the government was simply exercising its rights. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims the defense ignores key facts and legal principles. Let us address these claims:

The Evictions Process
The plaintiff asserts that the auction system was implemented when the vaulting system was removed “to maximize the value of the property for the owner.” However, if we examine the purpose section of the Eviction Auction Policy provided by the plaintiff, it clearly states: “Builds and plots which are evicted will be left on plots for realism and auctioned off by the government. All funds from sold plots are returned to the player who originally owned the plot.” This policy's purpose was to preserve the building and provide the previous owner (before the eviction) with the proceeds after the auction concluded and the transaction was finalized.

The plaintiff claims their rights were violated but fails to specify which rights and how they were breached. Moreover, how could their rights have been violated when the DCT acted within their Eviction Auction Policy? The guidelines explicitly state: “The DCT has the right to restart, pause, or cancel an eviction auction at any time for a valid reason.” The DCT operated within these rights, and the plaintiff’s allegations of abuse of power or rights violations are unsubstantiated.
Additionally, the plaintiff portrays themselves as if they were auctioning the plots, and the government unjustly interfered. In reality, the government was auctioning its own plots, and the plaintiff would have received proceeds only after the auction concluded.
A finalized auction is required to establish the market value of the property; speculative bids cannot determine it. For example, if an individual were to bid $100 billion on a property and the auction was canceled, the property would not be worth $100 billion. We cannot determine the market value of a property without the auction being concluded and the transaction finalized.

The Alleged Underpay
The plaintiff asserts they were underpaid; however, the selling payback provided was based on the property’s in-game value, as the auction was never completed. While the plaintiff may view this as inequitable, it reflects the only officially recognized value of the property.

The plaintiff also asserts they received only 50% of the buyback price instead of the promised 90%. This claim is accurate, but it was the result of a plugin error that displayed 50% instead of 90% at the time the plaintiff received their payment. The defense acknowledges this error and is willing to rectify it by providing the remaining $5,224 to meet the full 90% buyback price (90% of the property’s in-game value).


The Market Value
The plaintiff criticizes the defense’s argument that market value cannot be established without a finalized auction, calling it “one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen in my career.” Perhaps statements like this explain why their career hasn’t been particularly remarkable.

The bids do not provide the most reliable representation of market value; they are merely speculative. There’s no way to know for sure if the highest bid would have been honored, or if the highest bidder would have quit right after, lost all of their money, or encountered any other possible scenario. We can’t speculate and assume that the highest bid would have been honored, and therefore, we can’t assume that the highest bid would set the market value. We need confirmation; we need the transfer to be finalized in order for the transaction to be concluded and the market value to be set.

While everyone is entitled to their bid, there have been instances where the highest bidder couldn’t or wouldn’t pay, causing the winning bid to drop. This is why we need a finalized transaction to set the market value.

The plaintiff also alleges that their rights were violated when the auction was canceled but, again, fails to specify which rights. The DCT was well within its rights to cancel the auction, and no wrongdoing occurred.

Plot Ownership
No matter how the plaintiff tries to play this, the eviction process remains the same:

1. A property is reported by a Building Inspector.
2. The initial property owner receives an eviction notice.
3. The initial property owner is given time to resolve the eviction issue or request an extension.
4. If the initial property owner fails to resolve the issue, the government is set as the owner, the property is put up for auction, and the Building Inspector is paid.

That’s how the eviction process works. By ignoring the eviction notice and not requesting an extension, the DCT followed its due process. The plaintiff was lawfully evicted, and the government was set as the owner.

If the auction concludes, the original owner (meaning the initial owner) is paid. The government then transfers the plot ownership from itself to the auction winner. The government is set as the property owner after the initial owner is evicted and remains the owner until the auction concludes and the ownership is transferred with the auction funds.

In this case, the auction was canceled, which was within the DCT’s rights, and the property ownership was never transferred from the government. The government is not auctioning the plots on behalf of the initial owner; it is auctioning its own plots to later pay the initial owner if the auction is finalized.

Since the plaintiff was lawfully evicted due to their inactivity and negligence, the government was set as the property owner to proceed further.

Alleged Wrongful Seizure
The plaintiff claims that the government didn’t fulfill the requirements for Eminent Domain, but Eminent Domain sets clear conditions under which the government can seize private property. The plaintiff was no longer the owner of the property after the eviction, so the government didn’t take any private property.

The plaintiff can’t claim ownership of the property after the eviction was finalized, nor can they claim ownership during or after the auction, even if it was canceled. The plaintiff was evicted, and the property was surrendered to the government.

Even though Eminent Domain wasn’t needed in this case, a government shop falls under the category of government buildings, and therefore, a government shop could very well be considered an essential piece of infrastructure.

Negligence
Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the plot was unreasonably seized, FlyingBlocks was lawfully evicted for being inactive. This action led to him surrendering his plot to the government. The plaintiff did not request an extension or exemption, which highlights his negligence in the matter. He became inactive, lost his plot because he didn’t play on the server, and didn’t care enough to use legal mechanisms to prevent the loss. What does this tell us? The plot no longer belongs to him, as he willingly abandoned it through inaction and negligence. The plot belongs to the Commonwealth, which may either auction it to someone who will use it or convert it into public works that benefit the entire population.

The plaintiff cannot claim the plot was unreasonably taken from him when it was his responsibility to respond to the eviction and address the issue. It was his responsibility to take action to prevent the loss. It was his responsibility to request extensions and exemptions. But he didn’t. That is negligence

Conclusion
Your Honor, it is evident that the plaintiff is upset over losing their property due to eviction caused by their own negligence and inactivity. The eviction was lawful, and the DCT followed due process. Canceling the auction was within their rights, and no individual rights were violated. The plaintiff has failed to show any violation of their rights, and the allegations of abuse of power or wrongful seizure are without merit.

Furthermore, the plaintiff seeks an outrageous amount of punitive damages and compensation for an unfinished auction with speculative bids. As we have demonstrated, a finalized auction is required to establish market value; speculative bids alone cannot determine the true value of the property. We cannot estimate how much the bids would have reached, nor can we safely say that the bids would have been honored with 100% certainty. The defense will also gladly rectify the unintentional plugin error that caused the plaintiff to receive 50% of the buyback price, and the remaining balance of $5,224 will be paid promptly to meet the full 90% buyback price of the property’s in-game value.

Moreover, the plaintiff’s claims of wrongful seizure under the Eminent Domain are misplaced, as the government did not seize private property. The property was lawfully evicted from a negligent owner, and the government was rightfully set as the owner of the property. The eviction process was conducted in accordance with the DCT’s policy, and all actions taken by the government were within its rights and responsibilities. Let me remind you once again, that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, and they have failed to meet that burden.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Further, in the interests of a speedy trial we ask that the Defence is not allowed to drag this trial out further by requesting an extension to their opening statement.

They will have had three days to prepare an opening statement and I suspect they will use the objection which has little relevance to the rest of the case as a means to extend their time.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

This is an out-of-turn statement that serves only to prejudice the Court against the defense. I request the statement be struck and the plaintiff counsel be reprimanded appropriately.

 

[End]

Your honour, who is representing the defence? We have two people jumping in and out of the case.

We request that the defence be limited to one representative to avoid confusion

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honour, who is representing the defence? We have two people jumping in and out of the case.

We request that the defence be limited to one representative to avoid confusion

Objection

Breach of Procedure

This request is not a valid request and serves only to harass the defense. Parties may have more than one person appointed as counsel if they desire (first chair, second chair, etc...) and is common in Courts.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Apologies to all parties involved, I had a busy weekend and last couple of days.

Objection

Hearsay

The plaintiff is offering out of court statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which cannot be cross examined and therefore are hearsay in any sane legal system.

Overruled.

The Plaintiff has stated that these statements are within government and public discords respectively. As shown in many cases prior, discord statements are admissible in a court of law as supporting evidence.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

This is an out-of-turn statement that serves only to prejudice the Court against the defense. I request the statement be struck and the plaintiff counsel be reprimanded appropriately.

Sustained.

It is the responsibility of the presiding judicial officer to manage deadlines and reprimands. Airing suspicions without evidence is a poor show.

Consider this your first and final warning regarding this matter Prosecution.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

This request is not a valid request and serves only to harass the defense. Parties may have more than one person appointed as counsel if they desire (first chair, second chair, etc...) and is common in Courts.

Sustained.

The Commonwealth, and any other defendant for that matter, is permitted to have multiple lawyers work together to represent them.

Moving on, as no witnesses have been called upon by either party, the court shall move to closing statements.

The prosecution has 48 hours to post their closing statement. Please request an extension if necessary.

 

[End]

The plaintiff requests to provide it's closing statement

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Apologies to all parties involved, I had a busy weekend and last couple of days.


Overruled.

The Plaintiff has stated that these statements are within government and public discords respectively. As shown in many cases prior, discord statements are admissible in a court of law as supporting evidence.




Sustained.

It is the responsibility of the presiding judicial officer to manage deadlines and reprimands. Airing suspicions without evidence is a poor show.

Consider this your first and final warning regarding this matter Prosecution.


Sustained.

The Commonwealth, and any other defendant for that matter, is permitted to have multiple lawyers work together to represent them.

Moving on, as no witnesses have been called upon by either party, the court shall move to closing statements.

The prosecution has 48 hours to post their closing statement. Please request an extension if necessary.

Your honor, the prosecution was slammed in school. We request a 24 hour extension.

 

[End]

Objection

The defence has two people representing their case and they have had 48 hours + plus the rest of the case to prepare and present their closing statement.

You were very clear that they had two days to request an extension and they are only doing so now after their deadline lapsed. Why set deadlines if we continue to allow parties to overrun them at the expense of the other party?

The Defence has sent 298 messages in the past 48 hours on Discord. This is hours of chatter in legal and it's unfair to grant an extension for being unavailable when they were clearly available to at least request an extension.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

The defence has two people representing their case and they have had 48 hours + plus the rest of the case to prepare and present their closing statement.

You were very clear that they had two days to request an extension and they are only doing so now after their deadline lapsed. Why set deadlines if we continue to allow parties to overrun them at the expense of the other party?

The Defence has sent 298 messages in the past 48 hours on Discord. This is hours of chatter in legal and it's unfair to grant an extension for being unavailable when they were clearly available to at least request an extension.

View attachment 50980View attachment 50981

I was not delegated the closing statement, I was under the understanding the Attorney General was working on it. There is a difference between Freeze answering some questions on discord on a phone, and getting in front of a computer and writing out a lengthy legal document for the Court. The request stands.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

The defence has two people representing their case and they have had 48 hours + plus the rest of the case to prepare and present their closing statement.

You were very clear that they had two days to request an extension and they are only doing so now after their deadline lapsed. Why set deadlines if we continue to allow parties to overrun them at the expense of the other party?

The Defence has sent 298 messages in the past 48 hours on Discord. This is hours of chatter in legal and it's unfair to grant an extension for being unavailable when they were clearly available to at least request an extension.

View attachment 50980View attachment 50981

Objection

Breach of Procedure

This objection has no legal basis.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

All objections are Overruled.

I made a mistake and asked for the prosecution to post instead of plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their closing statement. Please request an extension if required.

 

[End]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honour, it has become clear throughout this case and through previous lacklustre precedent that the government is confused over its legal and moral obligations during the process of acquiring land.

Previous System
1. Eviction.
2. Building vaulted on behalf of former owner.
3. Land Sold for land sellback on behalf of former owner.
4. Transferred and all money goes to the previous owner.
5. Government is an enabler throughout all stages.

Current System
1. Eviction.
2. Property auctioned on behalf of former owner.
3. Transferred and all money goes to former owner.
4. Government is an enabler throughout all stages.

What the Government thinks the system is
1. Eviction.
2. The government claims ownership of the property without providing payment or obtaining legal authority to acquire it for nothing.
3. Property that it owns is auctioned on behalf of former owner???
4. The proceeds are supposedly transferred to the previous owner, raising questions about the government's claimed ownership.

The Government is an Enabler
Your Honour, the government’s case is fundamentally flawed. It hinges on the claim that it owns properties it had no legal authority to acquire. However, the reality is clear: the government acts solely as an administrator, holding the property temporarily to facilitate a forced sale for the benefit of the previous owner.

If the government were the rightful owner, it would have been required to provide consideration to acquire the property and would retain the auction proceeds in every case. This is not what happens. The simple truth is that the government’s claim of ownership is without merit, and their argument collapses under scrutiny.

The policy clearly states:
'Builds and plots which are evicted will be left on plots for realism and auctioned off by the government. All funds from sold plots are returned to the player who originally owned the plot.'

No matter how this policy is interpreted, the purpose of the policy is absolutely black and white: to ensure that individuals who lose their property through eviction are compensated fairly. Any action that undermines this principle is a clear violation of the intent and spirit of this policy.

If the auction concludes, the original owner (meaning the initial owner) is paid. The government then transfers the plot ownership from itself to the auction winner. The government is set as the property owner after the initial owner is evicted and remains the owner until the auction concludes and the ownership is transferred with the auction funds.

If the government truly claims ownership of the property, then why does it transfer the auction proceeds to the former owner? Ownership implies full rights to the property, including the financial benefits derived from its sale. By paying the former owner the proceeds, the government acknowledges that it is not the true owner but merely an intermediary facilitating the sale. This contradiction undermines the government’s claim of ownership entirely.

The defence attempts to use procedural discretion as a shield to justify an outcome that blatantly contradicts the policy's intent. Discretionary powers cannot be used to excuse the government’s failure to uphold its fiduciary duty to property owners. The purpose of discretion is to ensure fairness, not to enable injustice.

Underpayment Admission
The defence acknowledges an underpayment due to a plugin error and offers to rectify it. This is a tacit admission that the plaintiff was wronged. The offer to pay the remaining $5,224 is insufficient given that the property’s market value—established by bidding interest—far exceeds the buyback value. Correcting a minor procedural error does not address the significant breach of the government’s role as a trustee of the evicted assets.

By cancelling the auction and retaining the property, the government violated it's own policy. No where does the policy say that it can just not sell the property and claim it as it's own, which would require legislation at the minimum.

Market Value Misrepresentation
The defence dismisses the auction bids as speculative and unreliable, yet fails to provide any alternative method for determining market value. Auctions are widely recognized as the best mechanism to establish market value because they reflect actual demand - the market is literally bidding. The claim that bidders might default is hypothetical and highly unlikely due to the Government's stringent requirements and oversight of auctions (perhaps even more so in such a high stakes bidding war such as this).

A finalized auction is required to establish the market value of the property; speculative bids cannot determine it. For example, if an individual were to bid $100 billion on a property and the auction was canceled, the property would not be worth $100 billion. We cannot determine the market value of a property without the auction being concluded and the transaction finalized.

A bid of 100 billion dollars is clearly an illegitimate bid and lacks the intent to create legal relations. It also exceeds the size of the entire economy and opens the bidder up to a suite of legal liability. However, bids are legally binding - particularly when they follow a succession of reasonable increments. This example is hyperbolic.

If the government genuinely believed that bidders lacked the necessary funds or were violating the government’s own rules by bidding, then why were these individuals allowed to continue to participate in the auction? Why did the government fail to intervene and prevent them from bidding? The government’s omission in stepping in is a clear acknowledgment that it found no issue with the bidders’ financial standing or their capacity to pay.

If an auction is not a reliable and true indication of market value, what is? Everything else is purely speculation because it is not legally bound like a bid.

Eminent Domain and Seizure
The defence asserts that the government did not need to invoke eminent domain because the plaintiff lost ownership through eviction. However, this argument sidesteps the core issue: whether the government had the right to retain the property without just compensation.

Even if the plaintiff was evicted, the government’s failure to honour its obligations under it's own auction policy constitutes an unreasonable seizure of the property. The government is nothing but custodian to the evicted citizen's properties, it must follow legislated processes of acquiring property.

Negligence Claim
The defence repeatedly accuses the plaintiff of negligence, suggesting that they abandoned their rights by failing to address the eviction notice. Perhaps, only if the court agrees with this sentiment that rights are NOT inalienable?

This argument is irrelevant to the government’s subsequent actions. Regardless of the plaintiff’s alleged negligence, the government had a duty to act in good faith and comply with constitutional rights, the law, and it's own policies. The defence’s focus on the plaintiff’s inaction is a diversion from its own failures.

My client recognises that he was not available during this period, but as a longstanding member of our community who has been active over a number of years and who built this masterpiece in survival by hand, I beg that the court recognise that he should be paid the appropriate price in recognition for every block that he placed.

Dangerous Precedent
We've got strong laws in Redmont which protect our citizens' property from unreasonable and unfair seizure. That's why all cases of the government acquiring property must be negotiated with the owner or seen by a Judge for a court order.

However, if this court finds in favour of the defence, the entire legal process can be sidestepped by the government - instead, allowing them to evict people at will and for an unreasonable amount in compensation.

How would the average citizen feel if the government deemed their home an eyesore, evicted them despite their efforts to fix it, and then paid only the sellback price—effectively acquiring the land, undermining the principles of fairness and justice that our laws are meant to uphold.

In Closing
The defence's arguments rest on procedural technicalities and hypothetical scenarios, none of which justify the government’s blatant disregard for its policies, fiduciary obligations, and the plaintiff’s rights.

The facts remain:

The spirit of the auction system exists to ensure evicted property owners receive fair compensation based on market value - otherwise, why not just sell them for a fixed price? The government sabotaged this process by cancelling the auction, depriving the plaintiff of over $1.2 million in potential proceeds.

The government has admitted to underpaying the plaintiff, and while it offers to correct a small error, this does not address the larger breach of duty or the substantial loss incurred by the plaintiff.

The market value of the property was clearly demonstrated through the auction’s active bids. Dismissing these bids as speculative is an attempt to undermine a well-established method of determining value without providing a viable alternative.

The government’s actions violate both the intent of its policies and the plaintiff’s constitutional right to protection against unreasonable seizure.

This case is about holding the government accountable. By cancelling the auction and grossly undercompensating the plaintiff, the government has acted in bad faith, violated its own policies, and failed to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

We urge the court to rule in favour of the plaintiff, awarding full compensation for the property’s demonstrated market value and sending a clear message that such abuses of power will not be tolerated.

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1.1 Return of the Property to the Complainant to recognise the wrongful seizure and wrong it committed.

Or alternatively,

1.2. Market price ($1.2 million) +66% to account for any future bidding which was paused ($2,000,000).

AND

2. 20% in punitive damages due to the Commonwealth's outrageous behaviour in unlawfully and wrongfully seizing the property, setting a dangerous precedent for the breaching of property owners' rights.

5 - Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) “Punitive damages” are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from 4 - Compensatory Damage as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.

AND

3. 30% in legal fees in accordance with the Legal Damages Act

9 - Legal Fees
(1) Definition:
(a) Legal fees are most commonly used to describe the fees paid to the attorney for his/her time and effort.
(2) Award:
(a) Can be awarded either directly to the lawyer or to the client.
(b) Is dependent on the payment structure used within a retainer. A lawyer must declare their legal fees in their retainer and what percentage, if any, is to be kept by their client.
(c) Is capped at $5,000 or 30% of the overall case’s value whichever is higher.

If Justice is society's concept of fairness, then remunerating a plot owner $6,530 after cancelling an auction which would have landed the plot owner in excess of 184 times the amount is certainly not reasonable, moral, or fair. It's an abuse of power and a land owner's rights.

The plaintiff thanks the court for their time.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Thank you for your submission.

The Defense now has 48 hours to post their closing statement. Please request an extension if necessary.
Late submission will not be tolerated at this point in the trial.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, it is still evident that the plaintiff has failed to understand how the proceeding works. In order for them not to fool anyone with their bold claims, we will address everything for the last time and review the established facts of this case.

Let’s start with the eviction process:

1. The property is reported by a building inspector.
2. The owner fails to address the issue.
3. The owner is evicted.
4. The government is set as the owner.
5. The government auctions the property.
6. The initial owner is paid.
   

If we look at the eviction process of the property that the plaintiff provided in their discovery (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c069-oct-5-2024.23439/), we can see the following:

1. The property was reported by a building inspector.
2. The plaintiff failed to address the issue.
3. The plaintiff was evicted.
4. The government was set as the owner.
5. The government auctioned the property (the auction was canceled, as within DCT’s rights).
6. The initial owner was paid (the initial owner was paid with the selling payback because the property’s auction was never finalized).
   

The Government's Ownership
The plaintiff says the government’s claim of ownership is without merit, but as we can see in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. LilLethalVert [2023] FCR 86, no eminent domain was required because the property had been evicted. The property also became the NBD park. The same principle applies here: the property was evicted, not unlawfully seized, and the ownership was surrendered to the government. This is nothing new, as this is how it has always been.

Just because the government holds ownership doesn’t mean that the government keeps the auction money. The government simply auctions the plot because it has no use for it and can pay the initial owner with the money received from the auction. If not, the buyback price is the second alternative. Once again, the DCT followed its due process, legally evicted the plaintiff, and canceled the auction as within its rights. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the government exceeded its scope of rights and violated its policy, so the plaintiff simply has no claim here.

The plaintiff also claims, “By canceling the auction and retaining the property, the government violated its own policy. Nowhere does the policy say that it can just not sell the property and claim it as its own, which would require legislation at the minimum.” As mentioned in the DCT’s auction policy: “The DCT has the right to restart, pause, or cancel an eviction auction at any time for a valid reason.” As further elaborated in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. LilLethalVert, the government can retain its property.

Property’s Value
The plaintiff claims that the defense “fails to provide any alternative method for determining market value.” The policy doesn’t say that the initial owner has to receive the market value of the property, and the only established value of the property is its in-game value. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide any other methods to safely establish the value of the property, and the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.

We simply can’t speculate that the highest bid would’ve been honored, and we can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything would have played out exactly as the plaintiff presents it. We must consider other possibilities and take into account that we can only work with the established facts of this case.

The government doesn’t actively verify every bid; that happens after the auction concludes and when the transaction needs to be finalized. The government doesn’t have the resources or employees to dedicate solely to checking every bid on every auction. To make this process efficient, the auction proceeds from the highest bid down until a bid is honored. That’s how it has always been. There are still instances where people bid on auctions only to later regret it and refuse to pay. Once again, we need a concluded auction with a finalized bid to create an established market value for a property.

“If an auction is not a reliable and true indication of market value, what is? Everything else is purely speculation because it is not legally binding like a bid.” The bids are also speculative until the auction is concluded, the bid is honored, and the transaction is finalized.

Eminent Domain
As we have already established, there was no need for eminent domain. Since the plaintiff was lawfully evicted, the ownership was surrendered to the government. As once again elaborated in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. LilLethalVert, the government can retain the property.

The DCT simply exercised their rights; they did nothing that they couldn’t do, as stated in their policy. All the plaintiff did was claim that the government went outside its scope of authority, canceled the auction, and unlawfully seized the property, which is simply not true. The DCT followed its policy and did what was permitted. Just because the plaintiff doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s somehow unlawful or wrong.

Negligence
Again, the plaintiff had plenty of time to resolve the eviction issue. The plaintiff received a notice and had the opportunity to resolve this without any issues. The plaintiff failed to do so and is now blaming the government for their own negligence, which is frivolous.

The DCT followed its due process and did nothing that wasn’t allowed in its policy. Calling that unconstitutional and against its own policies is absolutely absurd. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to resolve this, and the possibility to avoid everything was in the plaintiff's hands. The government acted in good faith; the opportunity was given, and the plaintiff ignored that. There’s absolutely nothing to say that the government was acting out of malice. The government was following its due process and acting within its rights. The plaintiff was given a chance to resolve this but didn’t, all due to their negligence.

Dangerous Precedent
We agree this case will set a dangerous precedent if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff. Because all the government did was exercise its rights and follow its due eviction process. We do indeed have laws protecting citizens from unlawful seizures, but this is not the case. The plaintiff was lawfully evicted due to their negligence, and the property was surrendered to the government.

Since no eminent domain was needed in this case, the government did not need to negotiate with the owner of the property, as he was evicted, and there was no point in negotiating for the government to negotiate with itself. Therefore, no court order was needed. The only case in which this would require negotiation or a court order would be if the plaintiff had never been evicted, but they were.

“How would the average citizen feel if the government deemed their home an eyesore, evicted them despite their efforts to fix it, and then paid only the sellback price—effectively acquiring the land, undermining the principles of fairness and justice that our laws are meant to uphold?”

As we have already mentioned, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to resolve everything. They were given an eviction notice and had plenty of time to resolve the issue, but they didn’t. The plaintiff can’t claim that they “provided efforts to fix it” because they absolutely didn’t.

We can’t allow individuals to decide what is unconstitutional and what is not. In this case, the government did nothing that wasn’t within their scope of authority, and nothing they did was unlawful or unconstitutional. Your Honor, if this case is ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the government's authority to exercise its rights will be undermined. The plaintiff has failed to provide how the DCT allegedly did anything outside their scope of authority and has thereby failed to meet the burden of proof. We can’t allow this case to undermine the stability of our government just because someone was negligent, got evicted, and became upset.

It isn’t the government’s fault that the plaintiff was negligent, ignored the eviction notice, and got evicted. So why should the government be punished for that?

Let’s go over the facts now:

• The negligent plaintiff was lawfully evicted by the DCT when they followed their due process, and the government was set as the owner.
  
  
• The auction was canceled as within the DCT’s rights, and the ownership was retained by the government.
  
  
• As established in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. LilLethalVert, the government did not need eminent domain because the property was evicted, and seeing as how the plot was turned into an NBD park, the government retained the plot after the eviction. So these cases are the same.
  
  
• The only established value of the property was its in-game value, which the plaintiff was compensated for 50% due to a plugin error. The defense is happy to award, in good faith, the rest of the selling payback ($5,224).
  
  
• There is no certainty that any bids would have been honored. We need a concluded auction and a finalized transaction to establish the market value of a property. We can’t speculate and say that the highest bid would be honored or speculate on how much the highest bid would turn out to be.
  
  
• The plaintiff’s rights were not violated, as the property was NOT unlawfully seized, and the plaintiff was lawfully evicted.
  
  
• The government did not act in bad faith, violate its own policies, or fail to uphold the principles of justice and fairness. While the plaintiff may claim that the government has, the plaintiff hasn’t provided which part of the policy they violated because the plaintiff simply can’t.
  
  
• The DCT acted within its rights and followed its due process. There is no way this can be explained as frivolous, and therefore no punitive damages shall be awarded.
  

Punitive damages are defined as “damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counterclaim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law. These damages are distinct from compensatory damages, as there does not need to be any actual loss to be compensated. A penalty clause in a contract would fall under this definition as well.”

There is absolutely no way following due process and exercising rights is “outrageous” Therefore, punitive damages shall not apply here.

We also can’t speculate on how much the auction would go for, as it never concluded. Claiming “+66% to account for any future bidding which was paused ($2,000,000)” is, on the other hand, outrageous.

In this case, the plaintiff was lawfully evicted and awarded a selling payback for their property. The plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the eviction notice but didn’t, due to their negligence. The government can’t be held responsible for that and urges the court to rule in favor of the defendant.

The Commonwealth thanks the court for its time.

 

[End]

Objection

Breach of Procedure
The plaintiff requests permission to further respond to the new precedent which the defence has used in it's closing statement and not previously mentioned throughout discovery or opening statements.

Otherwise, the plaintiff requests that it be struck.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

Breach of Procedure
The plaintiff requests permission to further respond to the new precedent which the defence has used in it's closing statement and not previously mentioned throughout discovery or opening statements.

Otherwise, the plaintiff requests that it be struck.

Your honor, it is not a breach of procedure to present legal arguments including precedent. It is on the plaintiff for not having researched the case enough to find the precedent themselves and counter it — this is not new evidence, it is public record that we incorporated into our argument.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

Breach of Procedure
The plaintiff requests permission to further respond to the new precedent which the defence has used in it's closing statement and not previously mentioned throughout discovery or opening statements.

Otherwise, the plaintiff requests that it be struck.

Overruled.

It is no fault of the Defense that the Plaintiff failed to consider case precedent available to the public.

Their closing statement will not be struck, and this trial is hereby in recess pending verdict.

Thank you to both parties for meeting deadlines to the best of their abilities.

 

[End]

Your honour, closing statements were 15 days ago.

My client has a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.