Lawsuit: Adjourned Lord_Donuticus v. The Government of DemocracyCraft [2021] FCR 17

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Lord_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

The Government of DemocracyCraft
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES
1. Lord_Donuticus
2. The Executive Branch of DemocracyCraft
3. The House of Representatives of DemocracyCraft
4. The Senate of DemocracyCraft

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff recognizes that it is within their constitutional rights as a citizen of DemocracyCraft "to participate in, and run for elected office" as laid out in part I of section IV (The DemocracyCraft Charter of Rights and Freedoms) of the constitution of DemocracyCraft.
2. Section I & section III of the constitution detail the only three roles that a individual may run for; the House of Representatives, the Senate or the Presidency.
3. All three roles stipulate that they can only be run for if specific a certain number of hours of playtime have been met, 24 hours at a minimum.
4. Currently the plaintiff has under 24 hours of playtime, this means that there are no roles in elected office that the plaintiff can run for.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Government has infringed on the constitutional rights of the plaintiff by not allowing them to run for any elected office due to their lack of playtime.
2. Either the Government must correct this mistake and pay compensation for the illegal exclusion of the plaintiff from the elections, or be in violation of the DemocracyCraft Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $25,000 in compensation for infringement of constitution rights from the Executive Branch of DemocracyCraft.
2. $25,000 in compensation for infringement of constitution rights from the House of Representatives of DemocracyCraft.
3. $25,000 in compensation for infringement of constitution rights from the Senate of DemocracyCraft.
(OR $75,000 in compensation for infringement of constitution rights from the Government of DemocracyCraft (In the event that these institutions can't be sued separately. )
4. An immediate review of the constitution so that no citizen is denied their rights to run for public office again, or the rights are reworded.

DATED: 16th 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 24 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.​

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Lord_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

The Government of DemocracyCraft
Defendant

Case no: 02-2021-16-01

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The State recognizes the first right of the constitution.
2. The State denies that the Plaintiff's first right was violated because of the "Playtime Clause" of the constitution and the "Reasonable Limits Clause". It also denies it on the grounds that the courts acknowledge the Playtime Clause as legitimate in Budgetmich v. Nacho and Department of Public Affairs (Case No. 08-2020-21) when it was shown to be in consideration during the final judgment.
3. The state believes that the monetary prayer for relief is meritless and shows a lack of understanding of how the government works.

II DEFENCES

1. In Response to the Claims for Relief.
Hello, your honor, I, Attorney General Matthew100x, will be representing the state in this case pursuant to the constitutional right to run for election. The plaintiff here has made the argument that their right to run for office is being infringed by the "Playtime Clause" of the constitution. The "Playtime Clause" indicated in Section I under "Elections" shows that in order for one to run for the House, they would need 24 hours of playtime and in order for one to run for the Senate, they would need 72 hours of playtime. These do indeed stand in contrast with the first right of the constitution, the right to "The right to participate in, and run for elected office". However this is where the "Reasonable Limits Clause" of the Redmont Constitution comes into play.

The "Reasonable Limits Clause" is established within the Democracycraft Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the same place as our rights. It serves as a reasonable defense for the government to prohibit conduct that is otherwise protected. In this case, it is to prevent newer players who may not have become acclimated to the server from obtaining a position they may not be ready for. The Reasonable Limits clause reads as such, "The Democracycraft Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits codified within this constitution that are justified in a free and democratic server". Reasonable limits codified in the constitution are allowed to supersede these rights as so as long as it's reasonable. The state believes that the playtime requirements are reasonable.

To begin with, the government has playtime for many of its positions, from aqua jobs all the way to the president. Therefore it can be assumed that the government believes that playtime is a necessary requirement for these jobs. This is mostly because the state wants to prove player retention before entrusting the player with responsibilities. Another reason is that the state applies this standard across all people equally. This restriction is applied with no prejudice applied to any one individual. It is akin to an age requirement needed to run for office IRL, therefore it's reasonable for the state to have playtime requirements to prove the "maturity" of the player because all players are subject to this restriction. The Third reason is that the State already recognizes that the Playtime Requirement is a reasonable restriction as it was a consideration in the Honorable former Judge Westray's verdict in the case
Budgetmich v. Nacho and Department of Public Affairs (Case No. 08-2020-21).

In the amicus brief submitted respectfully by Hugebob, he claimed that there may be precedent as he failed to attain the 24 hour playtime requirement before the beginning of the cycle, this is not the case. The requirement in question is the 2 week join date, not the 24 hour playtime requirement; and such precedent was established under the pretense of the previous constitution

In this case, the plaintiff sought relief against the government because they were not included in public polling despite them saying that they would meet playtime requirements by the date of the election. The argument was never that the right to run had been violated, but that the right to run had a precondition that needed to be fulfilled in order to run. That is, the right to run in the election is acknowledged however they must have the playtime required in order to run. The Judgement of the case concluded that "as the best approach to ensure the electoral prerequisites are fulfilled within reasonability, is to consider them required prior to the electoral cycle". Meaning that the Court agrees that the playtime requirements are imperative in order to run for election.

It is imperative that the state protects the right to run for election, otherwise, it is possible that we could lose our democracy. However, playtime requirements are not unconstitutional nor do they infringe on the right to run for an election. They are a reasonable restriction.


2. In Response to the Prayer for Relief.
The State requests that the court rejects all claims of relief on the following grounds.

A. The Plaintiff does not understand that theory of the state and is attempting to sue entities that have Sovereign Immunity. You cannot sue both houses of the legislative branch as they have not consented to be sued by any individual including the state. Additionally, the Executive Branch receives sovereign immunity because it is carrying out its constitutionally mandated duty of vetting player's playtime requirements to make sure that they are eligible to run for office.
B. The plaintiff has no concrete damages for his inability to run.
C. The Plaintiff's standing for the case does preclude financial damage. Constitutional cases are non-transactional on the part of the plaintiff unless damages are clear and caused by the constitutional violation/breach.


DATED: This 16th day of February, 2021.

 

[Matt]

I will now ask both parties to submit their closing arguments. You are each entitled to reference opposing submissions in your statements. I would first ask the plaintiff to provide their closing argument, with a subsequent response from the defendant.

In an effort to maintain timely proceedings, I would kindly ask each response to be made within 48 hours of the previous submission (i.e. the plaintiff has 48 hours from now, with the defendant's 48 hours starting from the time the plaintiff provides their closing argument).

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Thanks Matts.

However as the constitution has been changed, to what it should have been a per the law passed back last year, since the inception of this lawsuit - My original point, which I am sure as due to the quickness of this change all can agree was a valid and true point and expertly argued by an outstanding legal expert, no longer stand.

All that can remain to be said now is that if you or a loved one has been injured in a way that was not your fault, if you feel you are being discriminated against for because someone won't sell something to you, fired you, or hell, just looked at you in the street funny: Contact Donut Law Associates today for a free consultation - Remember, no case too big, no case too small, Donut Law Associates will do 'em all. Big CASH prizes to be won.

DATED: This 17th day of February, 2021.

 

[Matthew100x]

The State has no further arguments to make, we rest our case.

 

[Matt]

Verdict

This case is settled in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff is mistaken if they believe this lawsuit has initiated changes to the Constitution. Indeed the relevant clause highlighted within the Constitution by the defence can be seen to have been active from at least the 7th January 2021 (evidence here). Due to this, on a balance of probabilities, the court struggles to be convinced by the claim from the plaintiff of being "outstanding legal expert". It is simply the case that the restrictions on playtime are reasonable and necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our democracy and are justified wholly within the Constitution.

Secondly, the court is strongly affronted by your advertisement. I cannot express strongly enough that this behaviour is simply unacceptable in court. This is a court, not a campaign studio. I was close to redacting that part of your message but I have decided to leave it as an example of how to not act in court. I will consider reporting your behaviour to the Redmont Bar Association for disciplinary action should you continue advertising in any future cases. I will take your inexperience within the DC into consideration on this occasion but please keep this case in mind for any future submissions by yourself; until this point, you had provided professional submissions.