Lawsuit: Dismissed Icypenguin79 v. The Department of Construction and Transport [2021] FCR 44

Icypenguin79

Icypenguin79

Citizen
Interior Department
Aventura Resident
Oakridge Resident
1st Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Staff
Icypenguin79
Icypenguin79
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
119
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Icypenguin79
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Construction and Transport (DCT)
Defendant

COMPLAINT

I have been improperly evicted from my plot by Queen_Cats for lack of progress even though there was an open DCT ticket at the time. Considering that the plot was evicted unlawfully, I believe that the DCT owes me compensation,

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Icypenguin79
2. Queen_Cats
3. The DCT
4. Galavance (Witness)
5. Block86 (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. I had my plot taken from him via a lack of progress report by Queen_Cats, a Building Inspector of the DCT. (https://democracycraft.net/threads/c-147-15th-march-2021.4201/)
2. I had an open DCT ticket at the time. (#dct-0198)
3. Queen_Cats, has access to all DCT tickets - including my ticket.
4. The “eviction excuses” policy that requires the ticket number on the plot was enacted after the creation of DCT ticket 0198.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. I was waiting for the DCT to finish a design for a building to be pasted on my plot.
2. Due to the inefficiency of the Department, an extended period of time without progress has passed. The plot had a sign with “finishing design” on line 4, which was a valid excuse at the time.
3. The new “evictions excuses” policy is not public and non-sensitive, which violates the court’s order in Case No. 02-2021-01-02.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $15,000 in compensation OR the plot returned
2. All non-sensitive DCT policies to be published publicly.

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 20th day of March 2021
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

If the plot c-147 has not already been sold, the DCT must place a temporary reserve on the plot until this case has been settled. If the plot has already been sold, please can the DCT secretary or a representative let me know ASAP.

This injunction will last until the case before the court has been settled unless the plot has already been sold which makes this injunction void.​
 
HI, I just want to say I have a stake in the suit as the owner of C-147. If the plot would be transferred out of my possession my business would be harmed at a much higher cost than what the buy price was.
 
The plot has been up for sale since Friday and has been sold to wbxtr.
 

1613516434104.png




IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of IcyPenguin79 v DCT. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
​
 
wbxtr said:
HI, I just want to say I have a stake in the suit as the owner of C-147. If the plot would be transferred out of my possession my business would be harmed at a much higher cost than what the buy price was.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I won't be taking your plot off you, regardless of the outcome.
 
Permission to request discovery for a screenshot of the DCT-198 ticket for proof to verify the date?
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Icypenguin79
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Construction and Transport (DCT)
Defendant

Case no: 03-2021-21-01

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Failure to follow discovery. IcyPenguin has not sent a screenshot of the DCT-198 ticket within a reasonable timeframe of 72 hours.
2. IcyPenguin by evidence did not place on their sign the DCT ticket that they had open. This is clearly said within the instructions that in order to be exempt from being evicted that the ticket must be on the sign " Players may use a DCT request as an excuse to avoid eviction should they follow the processes outlined here. Players must specify the ticket number of their build request on their plot should they wish to provide an excuse. Since they can only request one paste at a time, the excuse will only apply to that one paste. Otherwise, players are prohibited from using that excuse."
3. The 3rd claim for Relief is not substantive, the policy has been listed on the top of the DCT page of the forums since December 19th, 2020. (https://democracycraft.net/threads/private-ticket-requests.2495/). In addition, the second prayer for relief does not make sense when aligned with the third claim for relief because the policy is listed publically and can be seen by all.
4. The plaintiff alleges that they have been sitting for months on this ticket, but were in active violation of the law this entire time. They've had months to correct their sign to include the necessary information to avoid eviction. They failed to update the sign to address this deficiency and thus are liable for eviction.

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 March, 2021.
 
Objections your honour.
 
Objection:

Your honour, it is clear that the policy mentioned in point three of the defendants motion to dismiss was not public until after this case was filed. DrThunder7, a Building Inspector asked the general public if they could see the policy, and both BubbaRC and Hong_Kong_101 (who is also a member of the DCT) could not access the policy. These Discord messages are timestamped on March 21st. (See attached screenshots)

Because of this fact, I would request that the defendants second, third, and fourth points be dismissed and for the court to remind the defendant of the severity of perjury in this courtroom.

Thank you your honour.

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 March, 2021.
 

Attachments

  • BE16C0D3-6655-4781-8145-FD3B129CA693.png
    BE16C0D3-6655-4781-8145-FD3B129CA693.png
    255.9 KB · Views: 177
From the evidence submitted in this objection, it is apparent that the policy in question was not accessible. As such, the motion to dismiss is denied. I will continue by accepting a further submission from the defendant. Please present any further evidence and/or arguments. You can refer to the plaintiff's claims in this.

At the earliest convenience, can the plaintiff please submit the requested screenshot outlined in post 7 of this thread.

I do not believe the Attorney General claimed the policy was visible while knowing it was not.
 
Objection, your honor, the policy was made public in a government announcement on discord. The evidence can be seen below.

Thank you, your honor.

DATED: This 25th day of March, 2021.
1616726618898.png
 
Objection your honour,

My join date is two days before this announcement was made. It is unreasonable to request a player who barely knew the mechanics of the server, let alone DCT policy, to scroll up on government-announcements, when the court's order made in Case No. 02-2021-01-02 clearly states that "The DCT to make public on the forums all non-sensitive BI protocols as soon as is reasonably practicable, given that such a change may require staff to edit permissions. Reasonable justifications must be given if any protocols are withheld from the public.".

This policy was not made public on the forums, and as such my 3rd claim for relief still stands.
 
I accept the arguments of the plaintiff. I have been clear with the DCT in my judgment here that all applicable policies were to be made public on the forums. Discord is suitable for notifying citizens of a change, but there needs to be a permanent area for reference to policies and these policies need to be accessible to the public to be binding on them. It is unreasonable for the DCT to expect citizens, including players who joined after the date that announcement was made, to page through 100s of government announcements to find something they do not know actually exists; such a procedure is not accessible nor amounts to notice of the policy.

If the defendant wishes to make a further submission they are entitled to do so. I thank you both for your responses thus far.
 
Matt said:
At the earliest convenience, can the plaintiff please submit the requested screenshot outlined in post 7 of this thread.
Click to expand...

Screenshot_77.png
 
I was aware out of court proceedings were on-going with this case. Is there any update either party can provide for the court please?
 
I offered Icy an alternative plot on 27/03/2021, I'm still waiting for his response.
 
Could the plaintiff please respond to any offer once all necessary considerations have been made, so as to not leave the situation in limbo.

Thank you
 
Your honour, I am awaiting a response from Milkcrack on whether or not the design would fit on the alternative plot. I apologise for not responding here sooner.
 
Milkcrack said:
I offered Icy an alternative plot on 27/03/2021, I'm still waiting for his response.
Click to expand...

Please could the Secretary provide the court with an update at their earliest convenience.
 
Matt said:
Please could the Secretary provide the court with an update at their earliest convenience.
Click to expand...
Yes, thank, you for notifying me. However, the plot is bigger than his previous plot the exact same building would be unable to fit due to the height limit on that area.
I did however find another plot, 2 plots away from his previous plot without such height limit and the building would fit almost perfectly.
 
I am aware a deal has been struck. Can the Secretary please inform the court and place on the record what this deal was.
 
1613516434104.png



IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMONS
The DCT Secretary is required to appear before the court in the case of IcyPenguin79 v DCT. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

The Secretary is required to update the court.​
 
I would like to request a 24-hour extension, due to me being busy in real life.
 
Milkcrack said:
I would like to request a 24-hour extension, due to me being busy in real life.
Click to expand...
Request granted. The new deadline to respond is 22:44 on 21/4/21 GMT.
 
I believe IcyPenguin and Me have come to an agreement, if IcyPenguin agrees to dismiss the case when he receives plot c-140 from the government the case should be over.
 
@Icypenguin79 Please update the court as soon as reasonably practicable regarding this matter.
 

Verdict



This matter is hereby dismissed. Due to lack of interest in continuance of this case, I am closing the matter.

If there is any issue arising from the suggested out of court settlement, either party may send me a message and I will confirm the next steps.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top