Lawsuit: Dismissed Lord_Donuticus v. The DoJ & Executive Branch [2021] FCR 19

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Lord_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice of the Commonwealth of Redmont & the Executive Branch of the Government of the Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Plaintiff is arguing that the Department of Justice, and by extension the administration of President Krix, is negligent in its duties due to the fact that citizens are being murdered on the street in a violent fashion with no police response. This is a problem with a massive scale, the only way that a normal, law abiding citizen, can bring this issue to light is to create a lawsuit against the government in this fashion. The Plaintiff is calling for an immediate investigation and a solution to this problem.

It is the Plaintiffs opinion that the Secretary of Justice is in violation of their constitutional duties and should be removed from their position and replaced with someone who will reform the Department of Justice and ensure the safety of the citizens immediately. Should this not happen the plaintiff would seek to compel Congress to begin the immediate impeachment process of the President and the Secretary of Justice, due to their neglect of their constitutional responsibilities, but more importantly their neglect of the citizens of Redmont.

The only path that the plaintiff can find towards getting justice is this lawsuit, a citizen of this great nation should not have to take the time to make a lawsuit in order to get justice for a horrific and brutal crime. The government should ensure justice for its citizens, it has failed in this and thus should award relief to the plaintiff in order to fill this void left by its negligence, a void that the plaintiff has had to use their own time to fill.

I. PARTIES
1. Lord_Donuticus, the victim
2. The Department of Justice of the Commonwealth of Redmont, the negligent party
3. Dusty_3, the Secretary of Justice
4. Krix, the President of Redmont
5. h0tcold, the murderer

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff was murdered in the street right next to the Hamilton Monument, the literal center of the city which is in view of the congress building, the seat of authority and law, and the park where new citizens join our great nation.
2. The murderer, h0tcold, murdered the Plaintiff in a brutal and violent fashion with a sword.
3. The murderer then admitted to murdering 4 people, all without any punishment.
4. Lawlessness and chaos has overtaken our city, this is a black mark on the presidency of Krix. When citizens can be murdered in the street the government has truly lost all authority.
5. The Constitution of Redmont states that the DoJ is "charged with maintaining the peace and good order of the server" - it has failed in this, as citizens are being murdered on the street, and thus is in breach of it's constitution responsibilities.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DoJ is supposed to protect citizens as per the constitution "charged with maintaining the peace and good order of the server", they have failed in this. The Plaintiff is calling for an investigation into the inefficiency and failure of the DoJ & a radical restructuring to protect citizens & ensure safety above all else.
2. The Secretary of Justice is in neglect of their constitutional responsibilities in their leadership of the Department, and the President is negligent in their appointment of this SoJ.
3. The Plaintiff has suffered a great deal of lost time in the process of being murdered and then having to create this lawsuit, future time will be lost by the Plaintiff in a discovery period.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The opportunity for the plaintiff to begin a public fact finding mission/discovery period to discover evidence to support the claims of lawlessness on the streets of Redmont.
2. An independent, I would ask for Congressional run, investigation into the inefficiency and failure of the DoJ.
3. $2500 in relief from the DoJ/Government of Redmont due to the time lost by the Plaintiff from being murdered & the time it has taken to create this lawsuit. Further relief to be considered based on the time it takes the plaintiff in defending this suit/investigating & fact finding.
4. The President to fire the Secretary of Justice 'Dusty_3' immediately, so that a more effective SoJ can be put in place.
5. Should the President refuse to fire the SoJ due to their failure to adhere to their constitutional duties, the impeachment process for the President & the Secretary of Justice should begin immediately, due to the clear neglect shown for the safety of the people of Redmont & their constitution duties.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Evidence - The Murder Incident

VI. SPECIAL NOTE
I would like to ask for the chance, as lined out in the prayer for relief, for the chance to begin a public fact finding mission with the blessing of the court in order to discover the scale of the lawlessness and chaos that has overtaken the streets of Redmont. This discovery period would be to support, or disprove should not evidence be turned up, the claims of the plaintiff that the streets of Redmont have devolved into lawlessness and chaos.

DATED: This 20th of February 2021

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case Lord_Donuticus v The Government of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

The court will not bless the plaintiff to conduct a public fact-finding inquiry, but what the plaintiff does in their own time while acting with publicly available information is not for the court to preside over.​

 

[Technofied]

Your Honor, apologies for the intervention however -

h0tco1d is a permanently banned player with the issued ban as a result of toxic behaviour. This was established before this suit was filed.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Your Honor, apologies for the intervention however -

h0tco1d is a permanently banned player with the issued ban as a result of toxic behaviour. This was established before this suit was filed.

I would like to raise an objection to this interjection, from the almighty Gods themselves, as the murderers behavior is not the object in question but rather the fact that the Department of Justice and further the administration of Krix has failed to adhere to their constitutional responsibilities that they are to be "charged with maintaining the peace and good order of the server".

The fact that justice was dealt does nothing to deal with the fact that 4 murders happened before this lawsuit was filed.

 

[Matt]

I would like to raise an objection to this interjection, from the almighty Gods themselves, as the murderers behavior is not the object in question but rather the fact that the Department of Justice and further the administration of Krix has failed to adhere to their constitutional responsibilities that they are to be "charged with maintaining the peace and good order of the server".

The fact that justice was dealt does nothing to deal with the fact that 4 murders happened before this lawsuit was filed.

The interjection may not go to the heart of your lawsuit, but the court still deems it knowledge of some significance. Your objection has however been noted. The defendant is to proceed with their response within the time allotted.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Lord_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: [Case No. 02-2021-21]

MOTION TO DISMISS ORIGINAL SUIT
Defendant move that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The evidence does not prove that the DoJ did not do its job. Just because you take a closeup with your murderer does not = DoJ failing to meet constitutional demands. The entire argument hinges on two pictures that do not say anything about the situation other than the fact the plaintiff had been killed. The plaintiff fails to meet the standard of evidence requires for such claims.
2. Evidence shows that the Plaintiff failed at exhausting all avenues of ascertaining help from the DoJ for help before suing the DoJ. They did not call 911, did not tell police that they were killed without consent, did not open a ticket in the DoJ to request help. Instead, they sued the executive branch.
3. If there were any issues regarding not catching murderers, the only people there are to blame is the on-duty officer, of which there was only one. xPalarista was the only police officer on-duty at the time of the murders. However, the plaintiff failed to let the on-duty officer know that he wanted the murder jailed.

III COUNTERCLAIM - CROSS-CLAIM (NEW SUIT)
Defendant has claims against The Plaintiff as follows:

A FACTS
1. The plaintiff has slandered the President and the DoJ Secretary alleging as a fact that Secretary Dusty_3 failed to maintain his constitutional duties with no evidence on the matter.
2. The plaintiff had not tried to exhaust all avenues of solving his issues prior to launching this lawsuit.
3. The plaintiff asked in his prayer for relief for Secretary Dusty_3 to be fired from the DoJ Secretary 1 week into a new administration and his job. His attack on Dusty_3 shows a lack of respect for the DoJ Secretary by not allowing him to improve in the post that he is still learning.
4. The Plaintiff slandered the DoJ Secretary by calling his management of the department " inefficiency and failure". Despite not providing any evidence of his claims.

B CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DoJ Secretary's name has been dragged through the mud within both the "Claim for Relief" and "The Prayer for Relief" of his lawsuit. In addition, the plaintiff has declared that the President of the Commonwealth of Redmont as "Negligent" for picking Dusty_3 as his DoJ Secretary.
2. The Plaintiff showed malicious intent in their claims for relief and prayer for relief against Dusty_3 by trying to get him removed 1 week into the Krix administration. The plaintiff doesn't even offer the new DoJ secretary the chance to improve off of the issue.

C PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. We request a written apology from the Plaintiff
2. We request that the Plaintiff be fined $1000 dollars for slandering both the DoJ Secretary and the President.

DATED: This 22nd day of February, 2021.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Your honor, the plaintiff would like the opportunity to raise several objections to the defenses statement if at all possible.

OBJECTION:

Spoiler: Statement One

1. The evidence does not prove that the DoJ did not do its job. Just because you take a closeup with your murderer does not = DoJ failing to meet constitutional demands. The entire argument hinges on two pictures that do not say anything about the situation other than the fact the plaintiff had been killed. The plaintiff fails to meet the standard of evidence requires for such claims.

The Plaintiff would like to raise issue with this statement due to the fact that the plaintiff is unable to provide evidence that something did not happen.

There is no form in which the Plaintiff would be able to present something non existent, which in this case is a police response. The Plaintiff cannot that something did not happen, the absence of it is the evidence.

If I may put it in other terms to demonstrate my point, this would be like asking the plaintiff to prove that unicorns do not exist by providing a picture or record of the absence of a unicorn. It is a simply impossible task.

The Plaintiff provided all the information that was available to them at the time as a private citizen. It is the Plaintiffs opinion the Defendant should try and prove that they did do their job.

As such the Plaintiff would move for this to be stricken from the record, the Plaintiff would like it recorded however that the Defendant has recognized the Plaintiff was killed.

Spoiler: Statements Two & Three

2. Evidence shows that the Plaintiff failed at exhausting all avenues of ascertaining help from the DoJ for help before suing the DoJ. They did not call 911, did not tell police that they were killed without consent, did not open a ticket in the DoJ to request help. Instead, they sued the executive branch.

3. If there were any issues regarding not catching murderers, the only people there are to blame is the on-duty officer, of which there was only one. xPalarista was the only police officer on-duty at the time of the murders. However, the plaintiff failed to let the on-duty officer know that he wanted the murder jailed.

The Plaintiff would like to raise issue with these statement due to the fact that while the Defendant may state that the Plaintiff did not exhaust all avenues of reporting the crime and failed to let the on-duty officer know, the plaintiff would remind the Defendant that:

The Constitution does not charge the citizens of this nation with 'with maintaining the peace and good order of the server', the Constitution charges the Department of Justice.

The Defendant acknowledges that an officer was online at the time. The Defendant then tries to push the blame for this onto a Police Officer, the Constitution does not charge Police Officers 'with maintaining the peace and good order of the server', the Constitution charges the Department of Justice.

All online Police Officers receive a coroners report everytime a citizen is murdered. The fact that there was an Officer online while a mass murderer roam the street and killed 4 people is, in the Plaintiffs opinion, a serious failure on their constitutional duties.

As such the plaintiff would move for these also to be stricken from the record, however once more the Plaintiff would like it recorded that the Defendant has recognized that a Police Officer was online and did nothing in response.

Spoiler: COUNTERSUIT

MOTION TO DISMISS ORIGINAL SUIT
Defendant move that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The evidence does not prove that the DoJ did not do its job. Just because you take a closeup with your murderer does not = DoJ failing to meet constitutional demands. The entire argument hinges on two pictures that do not say anything about the situation other than the fact the plaintiff had been killed. The plaintiff fails to meet the standard of evidence requires for such claims.
2. Evidence shows that the Plaintiff failed at exhausting all avenues of ascertaining help from the DoJ for help before suing the DoJ. They did not call 911, did not tell police that they were killed without consent, did not open a ticket in the DoJ to request help. Instead, they sued the executive branch.
3. If there were any issues regarding not catching murderers, the only people there are to blame is the on-duty officer, of which there was only one. xPalarista was the only police officer on-duty at the time of the murders. However, the plaintiff failed to let the on-duty officer know that he wanted the murder jailed.

III COUNTERCLAIM - CROSS-CLAIM (NEW SUIT)
Defendant has claims against The Plaintiff as follows:

A FACTS
1. The plaintiff has slandered the President and the DoJ Secretary alleging as a fact that Secretary Dusty_3 failed to maintain his constitutional duties with no evidence on the matter.
2. The plaintiff had not tried to exhaust all avenues of solving his issues prior to launching this lawsuit.
3. The plaintiff asked in his prayer for relief for Secretary Dusty_3 to be fired from the DoJ Secretary 1 week into a new administration and his job. His attack on Dusty_3 shows a lack of respect for the DoJ Secretary by not allowing him to improve in the post that he is still learning.
4. The Plaintiff slandered the DoJ Secretary by calling his management of the department " inefficiency and failure". Despite not providing any evidence of his claims.

B CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DoJ Secretary's name has been dragged through the mud within both the "Claim for Relief" and "The Prayer for Relief" of his lawsuit. In addition, the plaintiff has declared that the President of the Commonwealth of Redmont as "Negligent" for picking Dusty_3 as his DoJ Secretary.
2. The Plaintiff showed malicious intent in their claims for relief and prayer for relief against Dusty_3 by trying to get him removed 1 week into the Krix administration. The plaintiff doesn't even offer the new DoJ secretary the chance to improve off of the issue.

C PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. We request a written apology from the Plaintiff
2. We request that the Plaintiff be fined $1000 dollars for slandering both the DoJ Secretary and the President.

The Plaintiff would like to raise serious issue with this counterclaim and calls for it to be immediately thrown out.

The Plaintiff's initial statement specifically states "It is the Plaintiffs opinion that the Secretary of Justice is in violation of their constitutional duties", not as the Defendant felt to include in bold that Plaintiff alleged as fact.

That alone would paramount, in the opinion of the Plaintiff, to willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath, the very definition of perjury.

However in this counterclaim the Defendant goes one step further.

The Plaintiff was voicing a political opinion on a political issue in this lawsuit.

The Constitution specifically protects the freedom of political communication in article VI of Section IV - Rights and Freedoms.

Launching this countersuit is, in the opinion of the Plaintiff, an attempt by the Defendant, and their legal representative - the Attorney General, to intimidate, bully and silence the political communication of the Plaintiff and discourage any future political communication. Make no mistake, it is the Plaintiffs opinion that the Defendant, and their legal representative - the Attorney General, have just used this courtroom to commit a constitution violation which is criminal.

Not only would the Plaintiff call for this countersuit to be thrown out, the Plaintiff is also calling for the Bar Association to investigate this action by the Attorney General, and for Congress to immediately investigate the Defendant and the Attorney General to determine who made the decision to attempt to violate the Constitutional Right of the Plaintiff to express political communication - with the guilty parties being subject to impeachment.

Thank you.

 

[Matt]

MOTION TO DISMISS VERDICT

Verdict

The court finds that the submission made by the defence is correct. The standard of proof in this matter is only that of a balance of probabilities, but even so, the plaintiff's evidence does not surpass this threshold. The claims made against the defendant were not to be lightly made, and even to prove such claims on a balance of probabilities would be challenging without compelling evidence.

The initial filing simply doesn't show a realistic prospect of success, with, as pointed out by the defence, evidence that isn't relevant to the heart of the claim. The court understands the frustration of being killed, though the availability of officers is something that transcends even the most dedicated of RPs; if people can't get on, they simply can't get on. The DoJ are aware of this limitation and have implemented tools to enact justice at later times when officers are online. I find that in taking these positive steps towards ensuring an enjoyable experience, the DoJ hasn't breached any constitutional duty. The Constitution requires the DoJ to "[maintain] the peace and good order of the server"; while such a burden is demanding, it doesn't require infallibility. The claim made that the murder of 4 people resulted in such a significant constitutional breach isn't proportional. While the administration holds responsibility for performing these constitutional duties to the best of its ability, it is important to recognise the timescale within which the present administration has had to operate thus far and correct any issues that they may, or may not, have inherited.

Further, the prayers for relief made, while certainly imaginative and significant, are majoritively ultra vires. Regarding prayer 1 - the plaintiff is entitled to engage in such an endeavour without the need for a court ruling, provided such information is publicly available/obtainable. Regarding prayer 2 - it is not for the Judiciary to direct Congress to launch an investigation, such a request would have to be made to Congress directly. Regarding prayer 4 - the court reserves the right to request the dismissal of a member of the cabinet only where they have committed an offence with a penalty of forfeiture of public office. No such offence has been alleged nor substantiated here so such a prayer would be unable to be fulfilled. Regarding prayer 5 - it is not for a court of law to direct a political body to begin a political trial. It is important that political and legal trials protect their independence from one another and as such, I don't see any opportunity arising whereby a court could order an impeachment to begin; while the dividing line between politics and law can be thin in places, it must remain intact on this matter.

Due to this, the motion to dismiss is accepted. The plaintiff is conjuring well-written suits, demonstrating a keen interest in developing the legal field. I would only suggest that the plaintiff doesn't look too hard for claims in the future. I don't doubt that significant lawsuits resulting in executive accountability will arise in the future, near or distant, but this was not such a case.

REGARDING THE COUNTER-CLAIM MADE

The claim made by the defence has been noted. The court will now proceed solely on the matters identified in the counter-claim, and not that which was made in the initial submission by the plaintiff.

From this point on, the State will now be referred to as the plaintiff and Lord_Donuticus will be referred to as the defendant.

The court will now ask the defendant to provide a response to the counter-claim made against them. I would kindly ask that such a response be made within 72 hours if possible.

 

[Matt]

Your honor, the plaintiff would like the opportunity to raise several objections to the defenses statement if at all possible.

My apologies, I hadn't seen your message prior to typing my response. Please include them in your response to the counter-claim and I'll review them then.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

My apologies, I hadn't seen your message prior to typing my response. Please include them in your response to the counter-claim and I'll review them then.

Objection recorded as requested.

EDIT: As in edited the original objection message to include the objection.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

If I may make a note to the court:

Given the recent announcement by the Attorney General (https://democracycraft.net/threads/office-of-the-attorney-general-matthew100x.3919/) The Plaintiff sees this as a very encouraging first step towards making our streets safer, and shows that the government is taking this seriously. As such the Plaintiff would seek to drop this case.

While The Plaintiff is waiting for an update on the objection raised, the Plaintiff would instead now like to drop their side of the original case imminently, with the exception of the objection to the countersuit being raised. If the court upholds the countersuit as legal and state still wishes to pursue it then the Plaintiff will of course defend themselves.

 

[Matt]

My response to the objections of the plaintiff posted previously is as follows:

The first objection is moot. It is my belief that the State wasn't asking you to present evidence of positive action, as your claim did not allege positive action was at fault. You had alleged an omission on behalf of the DoJ and it is therefore for you to prove this omission. Reversing the burden of proof onto the State in this situation would amount to an unjustifiable breach of amendment IV (Soon to be V once the Constitution page is updated).

I don't believe the fact you had been killed was ever disputed. All Police Officers vicariously perform the duties burdened on the DoJ and thus it is, per se, individual officers that are charged with upholding this standard. While it has been adduced that an officer was online, there has been no evidence, either way, to inform the court whether they were AFK or active. Such a matter is straying away from the heart and purpose of this suit and therefore is considered settled.

As such, your retraction is not necessary as my original dismissal stands

VERDICT ON THE COUNTER-CLAIM

Verdict

I believe the State's assertation of you factually alleging incompetence was not in reference to your specific statement highlighted but rather the submission holistically. However, the defendant's (Lord_Donuticus) submission of perjury is of some relevance here.

For the State to allege slander, they are alleging the defendant has made a "false statement which defames another person". However, the false statement that is alleged to have been made is a court submission. Making a false statement in court would rather amount to perjury. For perjury to have been committed the defendant must have given "knowingly incorrect testimony". Such an offence is difficult to prove in this system, and I don't find the facts presented by the State to allow for a reasonable chance of conviction on this matter.

As such, the countersuit filed is also dismissed and this matter is closed in it's entirety.