Lawsuit: Dismissed gsse v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 101

[Jakovus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

gsse (represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Complaint
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your Honour,

It is a well established principle in Redmont, its legal and jurisprudential system, that private property is absolutely inviolable, unless previously notified by the State of any searches, inspections or other administrative obligations. Every individual, consequently, is protected from unreasonable search and seizure by Part IV, §33, Point XV of the Constitution, and any violation of private property by the State with the intent of alienating said property from the owner to place it within the State's domain can be considered unlawful seizure if not executed per statutory provisions which would allow for such a seizure (Property Standards Act).

Inherently, it can furthermore be said that, as per Part IV, §33, Point XIII of the Constitution, every individual is equal before the law, and should enjoy equal benefit and protection of the law as any other citizen. The State, which is the supreme authority in legal respects, ought to do all in its power to ensure its citizens are treated the same by the law, and by the State itself, because the State is laid upon laws. This constitutional protection is inalienable, and always remains effective upon all citizens of Redmont.

With all of this in mind, the Plaintiff was egregiously damaged by the State in a multitude of ways. The Plaintiff was deported for three months, from 8th April to 8th July 2024; before the deportation occurred, the Plaintiff bought the RH026 plot for $100,000, which was to serve as the Plaintiff’s home. The Court should consider how this was an enormous undertaking for the Plaintiff, who was eager to finally get a decent home, when it was all illegally taken away from him by the Department of Construction and Transport (hereinafter DCT). So, why was the seizure illegal?

For three months the Plaintiff was deported, and while in deportation received no input whatsoever from the DCT or any other officer thereof about the state of his property, which was to be evicted due to the Plaintiff’s reasonably justified absence. This is a major blunder by the DCT, which denied the Plaintiff his constitutional right provided to him by Part IV, §33, Point IV of the Constitution, which states that all persons accused of any wrongdoing by the state, the DCT’s report withstanding, have the right to appeal the charge and have it reviewed. The Plaintiff was IP blocked, unable to receive mail, and there was no attempt at DCT to alleviate the Plaintiff’s position. Furthermore, the DCT blatantly stated that it is not their problem if the Plaintiff cannot see the charges set against him by the DCT. Knowing all of this, it cannot be reasonably assumed that the Plaintiff’s right to appeal was satisfied, as the State failed to even notify there is a charge present against him, on which he could appeal. The Plaintiff cannot thusly be considered to have been treated equally as his peers by the law, nor by the State, as he was not able to rebut the charge, he was even not able to ascertain that there is indeed a charge. These shortcomings hindered my client’s ability to make an informed decision on how to administer the property (whether to engage a trustee to hold it until deportation expires, whether to temporarily sell it, et cetera).

When the Plaintiff learned of the situation besetting his property, he tried to transfer it to another individual, only to be denied with the explanation how “[DCT] cannot transfer deported people’s property”. As so many of my client’s rights have been broken in the State’s endeavour to evict and seize the property, this cannot be reasonably considered a reasonable seizure, and the State thus breached another constitutional provision, one protecting from unreasonable seizure. The entire matter was, and still is a colossal emotional hardship for the Plaintiff.

I. PARTIES

1. gsse
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS

1. On 4th April, 2024, the Plaintiff bought RH026 plot for the total price of $100,000,
2. On 8th April, 2024, the Plaintiff was deported,
3. On 8th July, 2024, the Plaintiff returned from deportation,
4. On 5th July, 2024, the DCT issued an eviction report for plot RH026, caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to be active at least 6 hours in a month,
5. On 8th July, 2024, the DCT evicted the Plaintiff from the property, and ordered it to be put up for auction,
6. On 9th April, 2024, Vroomba, acting as an officer of the DCT, denied the request of iamtheconor, the Plaintiff’s trustee, to transfer the Plaintiff’s property to him,
7. On 8th July, 2024, the DCT acknowledged it understood that the Plaintiff was never notified of the eviction request,ž
8. On 8th July, 2024, the DCT stated “you not knowing about it [the eviction report] is not our problem”.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Since the State must endeavor to treat everyone equally before the law, and the DCT is the extension of the State and a holder of its authority, the DCT must by this virtue strive to treat all individuals they deal with equally; by keeping the Plaintiff in the dark about the report, by disallowing him to transfer his property to avoid a situation like this one, the State breached Part IV, §33, Point XIII of the Constitution,
2. It cannot reasonably be expected that the State assured the Plaintiff’s right to appeal against a charge if it, numerous times, failed to notify the Plaintiff that a charge even existed; the lack of the appellate procedure for the Plaintiff in this instance showcased gross breaches of Part IV, §33, Point IV of the Constitution,
3. As the eviction was executed on the basis of Point 1 and Point 2 of the Claims for Relief, which allege grave missteps in the procedure and legality of the eviction, this eviction and seizure of the property are alleged to be an unreasonable and an unlawful seizure of private property, breaching thus Part IV, §33, Point XV of the Constitution.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. The plot RH026 shall be relinquished by the DCT and reinstated as the ownership of the Plaintiff,
2. Compensation of emotional hardship this seizure caused to the Plaintiff, totalling $20,000.

EVIDENCE:

Exhibit A: Proof of payment for RH026 plot

Exhibit B: DCT denying it can transfer properties from deported players

Exhibit C: Conversation with DCT #1

Exhibit D: Conversation with DCT #2

Exhibit E: Conversation with DCT #3

Exhibit F: Conversation with DCT #4

Exhibit G: Conversation with DCT #5

Exhibit H: Conversation with DCT #6

Exhibit I: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/rh026-jul-8-2024.21963/ - the Eviction Report

Furthermore, I would request from this Court an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION to freeze the RH026 plot and disallow it from going to auction until the conclusion of this trial. If the plot was auctioned off, the Prayer for Relief and the point of this trial would become nonsensical, and it is important that the plot remain at DCT authority until this trial concludes.

Proof of consent to represent:

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 8th day of July 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@Dr_Eksplosive (AG) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of gsse 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.​

 

[Unseatedduke1]

I will be dismissing this case sua sponte. While this case was incredibly well-written and clear, which I greatly appreciate, DC staff has been clear that deported players have no rights in Redmont. Therefore, deported players do not have the right to challenge this in court nor the right to hand off property.

The Federal Court thanks all parties involved.