Lawsuit: Adjourned Partypig678 v. Department of Construction and Transportation [2021] SCR 14

[Milkcrack]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Partypig678(Milkcrack - DCLA representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Department of Construction and Transportation filed an eviction report on a property of The Plaintiff-(Partypig678). The property in question is plot number c-200. The type of eviction report used was: “Lack of Progress” however the reason provided in the report doesn’t seem to adhere to the reason provided in the BI protocol. On top of that, “Lack of Progress” is not codified into law and only exists as department policy. The Plaintiff believes that the DCT is not allowed to create new types of eviction reports, as it is a violation of the constitution.

We are filing this case before the Supreme Court because we are raising a constitutional matter and the Supreme Court hears all Constitutional Legal Matters and acts as a check on the legislative and executive power when presented with a legal question.

I. PARTIES


[TABLE=alternate]
[TR]
[TD]The Plaintiff - Partypig678 (Milkcrack - DCLA representing)
The Defendant - The Department of Construction and Transportation[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

II. FACTS

Spoiler: Facts

[TABLE=alternate]
[TR]
[TD]Fact 1.
Eyesore, Urban Agriculture, Historical Building Alterations, Empty Plots, Inactivity, Build Height Limit, plot limitations and inactivity are all codified into law. "Lack of Progress" is not codified into the law.

Fact 2.
The DCT BI Protocol forum is the only place where "Lack of Progress" is defined. The eviction type "Lack of Progress" is defined as the following:

When a player buys a plot in the city they have 2 weeks to start building something on it and should be making significant and regular progress.

Fact 3.
Plot C-200 which is owned by the plaintiff was reported for "Lack of Progress" on Tuesday, May 19. Even though it was structurally sound and didn't look like it was in a state of construction. The reason for "Lack of Progress" stated in the report is:

Interior of the building is incomplete and servers no purpose. Multiple floors are empty

Fact 4.
The DCT BI-Protocol forums state that the report reason for "Lack of Progress" reports are :

This region contains an unfinished building that has not been modified in more than two weeks. The owner has 7 days from this report to make significant progress or they will be evicted.

Fact 5.
Subsection 12 of the Congress Property Definitions Foundation Act states the following:

12 - Completed Buildings
A finished plot is defined as a plot with a completed building which is compliant with the building regulations and has a function, or a finished interior.

It is important to note that it states

has a function, or a finished interior.

and therefore doesn't require the building to have a finished interior as long as it has a function.

Fact 6.
Partypig678 appealed the eviction report on Wednesday 19th of may by saying the following:

My building is fully done it just has open space for offices that will be made/used by employees.

Thereby indicating that the function of the building was to serve as an office and provide office space to employees. Under the Congress Property Definitions Foundation Act, an office is included as a valid function for a commercial plot.

Fact 7.
The Secretary of the DCT replied to the appeal on Wednesday 19th of May with

Will be investigated in-game

It was not until the 24th of may a different senior member of the department said the following:

Approval to evict, no sufficient progress made

This was the day the eviction was due so Partypig678 had no more time to resolve the issue as it was his understanding the investigation was still ongoing as he didn't know his appeal was denied.

Fact 8.
Partypig opened a DCT discord ticket with the Attorney General to resolve the issue, his request to resolve the issue at hand was denied.

Fact 9.
The 15th provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states the following:

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

Fact 10.
The purpose and duties of the DCT are defined in the constitution as followed:

Department of Construction & Transportation (DCT): The department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country's urban environments. The department oversees Constructor and Building Inspector employment. Additionally, the department is responsible for the administration of a DCT store and Government Tenders.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Spoiler: Compensation for the loss of plot c-200

According to the DCT's own BI Protocol, the following 2 things must be true for a "Lack of Progress" report: Has not been modified in more than two weeks The BI in question failed to allege or provide evidence that the building has not been modified in more than two weeks. Must contain an unfinished building. The plot contains a building that does not appear to be in construction and has a clear function therefore it should be considered a completed building, as explained in Fact 5. and Fact 6. In addition to this, Partypig678 was not given proper notice, that his appeal was denied. Without proper notice, partypig did not know his appeal request was denied and therefore it is unreasonable to assume he had enough time to resolve the eviction. The 15th provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supposed to protect, citizens against unreasonable seizures. It is my understanding that if an invalid eviction report is made and an unreasonable time has been given to resolve said report it is in fact an unreasonable seizure to evict that plot. Our estimation of the plots itself is 60,000$. The building was custom made for the plaintiff and it would cost at least 36,000$ to make a similar building of the same quality. However, getting a different building in a different location won't take into account the history and iconic value that the building on that location brought. The building has served as a landmark for that area for several months which increases its market value, therefore, we ask for an additional 30,000$ for these factors.

Spoiler: Declaring "Lack of Progress" reports unconstitutional

The "Lack of Progress" report has not been codified into law and only exists as department policy. Congress has not given the Department of Construction and Transportation the power to create new building regulations it only has jurisdiction over the existing ones. By allowing the department to create new building regulations without congressional oversight is an abuse of the executive's power. On top of that in the way it is currently being used: to report buildings with minimally furnished interiors has nothing to do with "maintaining the build quality" but is an overstep by the DCT into other areas it doesn't have jurisdiction over. By allowing the enforcing body to define their own due process clauses how vaguely they would like, without any oversight, is a violation of the core principles of justices and the 15th provision of the charter of rights and freedoms when it is in regards to searches and seizures as is the case now. As partly explained in fact 1,2,9 and 10.

Spoiler: Declaring Lack of Progress reports for interiors against department protocol

Fact 2. The DCT BI Protocol forum is the only place where "Lack of Progress" is defined. The eviction type "Lack of Progress" is defined as the following: When a player buys a plot in the city they have 2 weeks to start building something on it and should be making significant and regular progress. Fact 4. The DCT BI-Protocol forums state that the report reason for "Lack of Progress" reports are : This region contains an unfinished building that has not been modified in more than two weeks. The owner has 7 days from this report to make significant progress or they will be evicted. Fact 5. Subsection 12 of the Congress Property Definitions Foundation Act states the following: 12 - Completed Buildings A finished plot is defined as a plot with a completed building that is compliant with the building regulations and has a function, or a finished interior. It is important to note that it states has a function or a finished interior. and therefore doesn't require the building to have a finished interior as long as it has a function. As demonstrated in the facts above, "Lack of Progress" is not codified into law and if the building has a function, a finished interior is not needed. On top of that even if the DCT wanted to report for interiors that are not in construction they would have to file a "non-compliance" or "eyesore" report and not a "lack of progress" report. This is important because the non-compliance report and the eyesore report gives more time to resolve the issue.

Spoiler: Punitive Damages

Partypig678 contacted the DCT 3 times in total to resolve the issue, in all of these cases, the DCT had no intention of helping him resolve the issue. One of the reason for this as stated by the DCT: The reality is that this plot has been empty since last year. You’ve made no reasonable attempt to finish the building in that time either My client made it clear he did not know it was the DCT opinion his building was in violation of the building regulation. However, he is still being punished for not resolving the issue before he even knew there was one. Partypig contacted the Attorney General about the department's misconduct, and partypig stated he was forced to sue if the DCT is not able to resolve it through the standard appeal process. The DCT, AG and Partypig were not able to come to an agreement. Even though the DCT knew partypig intended to sue they intentionally re-affirmed on the forums that the building needed to be evicted so that it would be evicted and sold, sooner. The DCT had no reason for doing this besides making it harder for the plaintiff to get his property back in case he would win. For the reasons stated above the plaintiff is asking for an additional 6000$ in punitive damages to show to the DCT that this behaviour is unreasonable and to compensate the plaintiff for enduring the emotional distress related to being submitted to this behaviour.

Spoiler: Attorney Fees

Partypig has used every resource that did not include suing available to him, to try to resolve this very easily resolvable report. The DCT did not make the effort to help to resolve the issue. Therefore partypig is now required to file a lawsuit and hire a lawyer. It is unreasonable to assume private citizens have to pay money for lawyers, to protect their property from the government therefore the attorney fees should not have to be paid by an individual but rather by the DCT themselves.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. We ask DCT to compensate partypig for the building and the plot: 60,000$ for the loss of plot c-200, 36,000$ for the loss of the building and 30,000$ for the historical and iconic value the building served. 2. We ask the DCT to stop enforcing building regulations not codified into law and remove "Lack of Progress" reports. 3. We ask the DCT to stop enforcing "Lack of Progress" reports on the interiors of buildings. 4. Punitive Damages: Due to the unreasonable behaviour of the DCT, we ask for 6000$ in punitive damages. 5. Attorney Fees We ask the DCT to pay for the Plaintiffs Attorney Fees at the end of the lawsuit.

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 25 day of May 2021

 

[Westray]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Partypig678 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours, or this summons will result in a default judgment.​

 

[bubbarc]

May I have an extension of 24 hours due to ongoing personal matters

 

[Milkcrack]

The plaintiff has no objection, your honour.

 

[Westray]

May I have an extension of 24 hours due to ongoing personal matters

The request for an extension of 24 hours has been granted, please keep the court updated.

 

[Westray]

We ask that the Defendant responds to this case accordingly. If there is any other extensions or information the court should be aware of, please inform us on this thread.

Thank you.

 

[bubbarc]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Partypig678
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: [05-2021-27]

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Department Policy's only constitutional limit is that it cannot be in law, which the plaintiff ignores in their filing,
their claim that lack of progress isn't codified in law therefore is unconstitutional is unfounded with this in mind

2. The interior of the building was practically empty for over two months and served no commercial purpose due to the fact that Partypig678 is the only employee of google, the build was just sitting there taking up space with a practically empty interior, nobody except the CEO worked there

3. The claim that I was involved in the appealate process simply is false, I instead helped facilitate it

4. Attached under "Evidence" is a screenshot of the original appeal before I had facilitated further conversation on the matter

5. The Plaintiff claims that this is unreasonable seizure of property, however the constitution specifically gives them the duty to maintain build quality in urban environments, the quality of the build isn't just the interior but also the exterior

6. The ruling that lack of progress reports are unconstitutional would be highly damaging to Hamilton as a whole, the effects including the following:
a. The city would be littered with empty builds
b. The DCT would need to pass a bill every time they want to enforce new policy
c. The DCT would likely have to compensate everybody who was evicted under this clause, bankrupting the government in days

7. The Plaintiff's legal counsel is the former DCT secretary, meaning he himself endorsed the policy and had his department work with it

8. While not an uncommon practice to include Attorney Fees under the prayer for relief, the claim that somebody should not have to pay their lawyer while suing for something they deem "unreasonable" could be easily interpreted as people don't have to pay their lawyers for a lawsuit they deem unreasonable that they have to sue for

9. A prayer for relief of well over $100,000 is utterly frivolous when you consider the following:
a. There was no appraisal for the plot by an expert on the matter (I.E. a realtor)
b. The highest a plot by the capitol has sold for is around 40k
c. The plot has no historical value, bar that it has been standing, (empty, if I may,) for several months

Spoiler: Evidence

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 (day) day of (month) (year)

 

[Canxx01]

Your Honor, i am here on behalf of my firm, Distinctive Partners at Law, who've taken the case as we are representing Partypig678. Due to my conflict of interest as a Prosecutor i will be recusing myself from this case, though i wanted to speak on behalf of the First Chair on this case, my partner Pugbandit, who asked me to ask for a continuance for 72 hours, 24 to prepare an opposition and 48 for understanding this rather complex case. We thank the Court for overseeing this case.
My partner Pugbandit has had exams, rendering him unavailable to attend to this case at this time, though he will be prepared before the court after they are over.

 

[Westray]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Partypig678
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: [05-2021-27]

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Department Policy's only constitutional limit is that it cannot be in law, which the plaintiff ignores in their filing,
their claim that lack of progress isn't codified in law therefore is unconstitutional is unfounded with this in mind

2. The interior of the building was practically empty for over two months and served no commercial purpose due to the fact that Partypig678 is the only employee of google, the build was just sitting there taking up space with a practically empty interior, nobody except the CEO worked there

3. The claim that I was involved in the appealate process simply is false, I instead helped facilitate it

4. Attached under "Evidence" is a screenshot of the original appeal before I had facilitated further conversation on the matter

5. The Plaintiff claims that this is unreasonable seizure of property, however the constitution specifically gives them the duty to maintain build quality in urban environments, the quality of the build isn't just the interior but also the exterior

6. The ruling that lack of progress reports are unconstitutional would be highly damaging to Hamilton as a whole, the effects including the following:
a. The city would be littered with empty builds
b. The DCT would need to pass a bill every time they want to enforce new policy
c. The DCT would likely have to compensate everybody who was evicted under this clause, bankrupting the government in days

7. The Plaintiff's legal counsel is the former DCT secretary, meaning he himself endorsed the policy and had his department work with it

8. While not an uncommon practice to include Attorney Fees under the prayer for relief, the claim that somebody should not have to pay their lawyer while suing for something they deem "unreasonable" could be easily interpreted as people don't have to pay their lawyers for a lawsuit they deem unreasonable that they have to sue for

9. A prayer for relief of well over $100,000 is utterly frivolous when you consider the following:
a. There was no appraisal for the plot by an expert on the matter (I.E. a realtor)
b. The highest a plot by the capitol has sold for is around 40k
c. The plot has no historical value, bar that it has been standing, (empty, if I may,) for several months

Spoiler: Evidence

View attachment 11055View attachment 11056View attachment 11057

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 (day) day of (month) (year)

The court has decided to reject your motion to dismiss. It is not alleging inaccuracies or a frivolous case, but instead is presenting a counter-argument to the court.

In terms of the alleged frivolous prayer for relief, in no way does this court have to grant the full relief. In addition, the Plaintiff's former legal counsel being the former DCT Secretary poses zero relevance.

Your Honor, i am here on behalf of my firm, Distinctive Partners at Law, who've taken the case as we are representing Partypig678. Due to my conflict of interest as a Prosecutor i will be recusing myself from this case, though i wanted to speak on behalf of the First Chair on this case, my partner Pugbandit, who asked me to ask for a continuance for 72 hours, 24 to prepare an opposition and 48 for understanding this rather complex case. We thank the Court for overseeing this case.
My partner Pugbandit has had exams, rendering him unavailable to attend to this case at this time, though he will be prepared before the court after they are over.

The extension of 72 hours has been granted. Please keep the court updated.

 

[pugbandit]

The Plaintiff is ready to proceed, Your Honor.

 

[Westray]

Please proceed with your opening statement.

 

[pugbandit]

| OPENING STATEMENT |

The Plaintiff would like to thank the Supreme Court for their patience while we reviewed this case.

The Plaintiff would like to respond to some of the points made by the Defence in their motion to dismiss. Firstly, the defence made the point of “The interior of the building was practically empty for over two months and served no commercial purpose due to the fact that Partypig678 is the only employee of google, the build was just sitting there taking up space with a practically empty interior, nobody except the CEO worked there” which we would like to respond to by saying that it is not stated in the Constitution of Redmont that companies or the commercial puposes is monitored or judged by the DCT but infact the DEC which is “charged with maintaining the country's economic state”. The DCT is on the other hand charged with “creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country's urban environments”. The use or progress of the build did not affect the quality of the build and its purpose economically has no relevance as the DCT is not constitutionally mandated to report based on use of a build merely its “quality”. The fact that the defence has taken steps to justify the eviction based on progress made within the company and the amount of employees it has is a direct contrast to the Constitution.

If the argument is made that the DCT may monitor purposes of builds then:

The reasoning given behind the eviction was "unfinished interior", while the Subsection 12 of the Congress Property Definitions Foundation Act clearly states the following:

> A finished plot is defined as a plot with a completed building which is compliant with the building regulations and has a function, or a finished interior.

Therefore, a building does not require to have a finished interior as long as it has a function, rendering the eviction baseless and incorrect.

Infact since “Lack of Progress” is not codified in law this report automatically should be disregarded as the DCT has not been given the power to create laws unlike other departments such as the DEC for example who have the constitutional power to do so ( DEC can“updating country guidelines and laws”) If the court grants the DCT power to make rules a dangerous precedent will be set that departments can create rules without a direct mandate from the constitution (which the DEC received but the DCT did not).

Partypig678 has appealed the eviction report on Wednesday 19th of May, saying that the function of the building was to serve as an office and provide office space to employees. This correlates with the Congress Property Definitions Foundation Act, as an office is a valid function for a commercial plot.

The Secretary of the DCT has stated that the eviction would be investigated in-game, only for Partypig678 to be the recipient of the following message made by a different senior member of the department:

> Approval to evict, no sufficient progress made

This was the day the eviction was due so Partypig678 had no more time to resolve the issue as it was his understanding the investigation was still ongoing as he didn't know his appeal was denied.

Not only did my client tried to resolve this issue in good faith with the DCT, he also tried it with the Attorney General, which was denied.

In pursuant to the 15th provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Thus, the Plaintiff is now filing suit for the unreasonable seizure of his commercial plot, with a baseless, incorrect eviction report.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The Defendant may now proceed with their opening statement.

 

[Poemhunter]

Your Honour,

Due to a conflict of interest I have been assigned to represent the DCT in this lawsuit.

Due to my busy work schedule which I can provide to the court it will be difficult for me to reply in time and for me to prepare properly for this case. May I ask the court for a 72hr extension for me to read up on the case and reply with the states opening statements.

 

[Westray]

Your extension of 72 hours has been granted. Please keep the court updated.

 

[Poemhunter]

Opening statement.


The Plaintiff wants the court to believe his argument but as the state will prove, they are mere statements of deception,

The building inspectors report was made not he 18th may stating lack of progress due the failures of the plaintiff to fully complete the buildings interior apart from the two to three floors all others are empty. The plaintiff argues that lack of progress is not a reasonable grounds for eviction as it is not law but instead BI protocol and the plaintiff believe the DCT has created a new type of eviction, which they claim to be unconstitutional. However recent codified law brought into effect only two months ago help codify some of the powers given and used by the DCT. The bill did not explicitly remove any previous powers from the DCT, however the power has been performed by the DCT since day zero of this server, this practice has been used by the DCT for over a year and this is caring out the powers granted under the constitution so to there power was not removed but codified some practice and process.

“A player upon buying a plot has two weeks to start building and maintaining significant progress”. A completed building is defined by law as a building with a function or finished interior. The plaintiff claims this because if the building has a purpose it does not need to have a finished interior, However there is a problem with the plaintiff view of this, The plaintiff claims that the empty floors serve as office space for his employees to use. This is stated in the congress property definitions foundations act that offices are a purpose for a building. However since the building exterior completion which can be seen since march 13th ( Picture proof provided ) on a 3d map of Redmont, the building since then has yet to implement any office space for the employees of his company on any of the floors, they have remained empty except a small desk on the ground floor and a small stage on the second. The plaintiff claims that the buildings function serves as offices space for his employees yet in the companies service is only the plaintiff one other and to the states knowledge has had no other employees since the companies registration grant on the 27th of August 2020, so we ask the question how can this building on plot C-200 possibly serve as office space for employees with no employees.

If we look close enough we can see a pattern, the plaintiff has a lack of progress in his building due to thee lack of function of the building. The case they are trying to present to the courts has no founding, we are seeing feeble excuses to try and cover the mistakes made by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims that the court through precedent will be given dangerous power to the DCT, however the practices has been performed since the DCT creation and only now its being questioned, this isn’t about the overstepping of the DCT but rather an excuse to try and take advantage of the government for the Plaintiff mistake, there is no mandate by the DCT, the department is only carrying out its duties practiced since the very start.

The claim to that the plaintiff had no time to resolve this issue are false, he knew the building was under investigation, and made no attempt to make significant improvements to the said problem. The DCT did investigate and concluded in the eviction, evidence of this investigation under Evidence Investigation by DCT.

The claim that the former attorney general was engaged to resolve this issue is miscorrect by the plaintiff as to state the fact provided by the former attorney general he help facilitate the appeal process.

The fact the plaintiff tries to claim his constitutional rights have been breached shows the depth of the misinterpretation of the constitution, and the department practice through precedent if the lack of progress reports were outlawed and deemed unconstitutional the city would be littered with abandoned building uncompleted or untouched, the damage of what the plaintiff would seek would cause mass law suits of the DCT and for the department restricted ability to do its job and function.

The state will present also a report done by the Department of Education and commerce into the activity of the company, this will help determine if this company actually is uses the premises and uses the function or rather is just a front and a hoarder of the property and is willing to do nothing and allow the city to be blocked to urban renewal.

All evidence presented below and DEC Report added:

Spoiler: Date of Building established

Spoiler: Zoomed Google 3d Map

Spoiler: DCT Investigation

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far.

Was there any objections to such evidence, witness testimony, or additional evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?

 

[pugbandit]

The Plaintiff does not have any objections thus far and is ready to move forward with closing statements.

 

[Poemhunter]

We are ready to proceed Your Honour.

 

[Westray]

The Plaintiff may now proceed with their closing statement.

 

[pugbandit]

| CLOSING STATEMENT |

Your Honour,

The response brought forward has brought up interesting points which the Plaintiff would like to adress.

Firstly, the Plaintiff brought up this point "recent codified law brought into effect only two months ago help codify some of the powers given and used by the DCT. The bill did not explicitly remove any previous powers from the DCT, however the power has been performed by the DCT since day zero of this server, this practice has been used by the DCT for over a year and this is caring out the powers granted under the constitution so to there power was not removed but codified some practice and process."
We believe that if such a power of the DCT is not stated directly by the law, which Congress has codified then it cannot be executed. This is due to the fact that the DCT has no right to add powers to themselves. Even the constitution does not state that the DCT is allowed to add such rules saying “creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the country's urban environments” at no point is it stated that this department has the power to enforce new laws or rules. If Congress was to codify "Lack of Progress" then this report would be considered legal in our view. If the court rules that the Department of Construction and Transport may create laws then there is a risk that this freedom may be violated "XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." with no checks. With Congressional codification of such laws, there shall be checks to maintain citizen rights.


With it codified that the Plaintiff does need for a building to be called "completed", "a function, or a finished interior". The plot was a commercial plot which is defined as: "Commercial plots may only have businesses, offices, shops, apartment buildings, and other commercial buildings built on them." This building met 2 of the requirements.
1) Businesses- the business which was located at this site was Google- therefore it had a purpose.
2) Offices- the Plaintiff had provided that this was a purpose for the building- office space for the companies employees. The reasoning that due to the company only had one employee makes this invalid is ludicrous. Just due to the amount of employees a business has- should its assets be ceased. If a swing was sitting in a park, but no children were around- would you say it had no purpose? No it has a purpose- to swing. Just due to a lack of employees- an eviction should not be made as a purpose exists. If a lack of employees made it so there was no purpose in the DCT's eyes, then that is discriminating this company due to its business practices and the way it decides to run. The DEC report reads their view on the situation of Google which may be legitimate, however the DEC cannot give the DCT the mandate to do anything. By saying, "they do not have any sort of requirement for an in-game storefront, headquarters, or office building " directly contradicts the owner of the business who has provided a requirement- "office space". Just due to low employment does not mean that office space is invalid as a purpose.

This is an overreach of the Department of Construction and Transportation- where a business owner has given a valid reason according to the law of a use to his building but still has been evicted is extremely worrying.

 

[Westray]

The Defendant may now proceed with their closing statement.

 

[Poemhunter]

Closing Statement


Precedent, The DCT has been doing the service of maintenance of our urban environments, the DCT has acted in no way unconstitutional, it has kept within the boundaries layer out within the Constitution and exercise its rights in order to keep the “creation of government infrastructure and maintenances of building quality throughout the countries urban environments. The action taken by the DCT is not a new one and has been exercised in keeping the countries building infrastructure up to date, fresh and so we can use these areas for business enterprise.

The DCT is acting on precedent of the last year and is in no violation of a constitutional breach. By deciding against the precedent that has helped keeping building quality and integrity along with keeping a vibrant city and has allowed for innovation and business enterprise, but taking away this can lead to a course of seeing the city areas enter into to decay and we would see a rise in unused and un-functioning building plated all around the pitying leading to waste lands and deserted areas where nothing can be done for self renewal therefore we cannot allow this precedent to be abolished this give the power for the DCT to make sure this does happen, remove the roots of decay before its too late and we cannot stop its effect.

To turn to the plaintiff point on meeting requirements, they claim to have the business located at eh google building but the building doesn’t have any business working from it as the DEC reported stated the business works very privately and solely on discord all work id done there. So the question I ask how can the building play a part in the business when the business is itself on another platform not needing the other completely detached from each other. The second, the office space , this argument has been presented to the court before and has yet to be shown, the company has at current two employees and the building still lacks two offices its claimed to be for employees but if the company did hire more why have they not in there long time on the plot made offices for who people are hired. The building as stated by the DEC report has no function and by the DCT standards lacks progress.

The DEC report only helps enforce the decision taken of why the DCT didi what they did, from their investigation we can see the absence of google and how ineffective the building to their arguments. The company has never made office space but has had a building just sitting there deserted, it has no function or purpose and lacks progress.

I firmly believe that the DCT through law acted well within their power to fulfil their constitutional obligations and I hope the court shares the same view.

 

[Westray]

Thank you for the arguments presented throughout this case.

Given the fact that there is over $100,000 on the line in this case, in addition to the legality of a BI protocol, I would ask both parties express patience with the Supreme Court. Deliberations may take up to a week. Thank you.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 05-2021-27

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Partypig678, represented by Pugbandit, allege that the reason provided in the eviction of c-200 did not adequately adhere to the definition of “Lack of Progress” listed in Building Inspector protocol.
2. The Plaintiff additionally asserts that "Lack of Progress" is not defined within law, and only department policy. They claim that it is unconstitutional for the DCT to establish additional eviction types.
3. The Plaintiff believes that their building had a clear function, meeting the required standard under "Completed Buildings". They claim the function was for the company to provide office space for employees.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Department of Construction and Transport, claims that department policy's only constitutional limit is that it cannot be in law.
2. The Defendant asserts that the interior of the building was practically empty for over two months and served no commercial purpose due to the fact that Partypig678 was the only employee of google.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the policy of "Lack of Progress" is one that acts in accordance with the codified "Completed Buildings". Unless further codified within law in the future, it should be noted that Lack of Progress exists specifically to ensure buildings are complaint with §6.10 in the Rules & Laws.
2. As evident in the DEC report and the evidence presented correlates that the company of Google may not have had an active function, however, this does not exempt the department from acting in bad faith during such eviction.
3. We do find that a test of reasonability must be applied in such a scenario. From the evidence presented, the DCT Secretary, Mhadsher101, informed the Plaintiff of an "investigation underway" on May 22, whereas another member of the DCT, xEndeavour, stated on the thread that the eviction remains extant on May 24. There was no conclusion to this investigation, and the DCT made minimal effort to properly inform the Plaintiff of such.
4. As noted in section 3 of our opinion, we believe that the Plaintiff may be entitled to compensation as a result of a lack of proper notice. If the DCT Secretary is investigating an eviction, they should provide an adequate response and conclusion of such investigation before eviction.
5. We find that the prayer for relief of $100,000 is frivolous. In specific, to ask for $30,000 due to "historic and iconic value" is outright egregious, along with the clear overvaluation of the plot.
6. As noted in section 5 of our opinion, we believe that the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation of the current flat price of the plot and punitive damages. No realtor has appraised the value of the plot further, and the building (which was valued at $36,000 in the prayer for relief) can be retrieved and put on a new plot at any time, as per the eviction process.

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby determines the following compensation:
(a) $12,600 to be paid to the Plaintiff, the current value of the c-200 plot.
(b) $3000 to be paid to the Plaintiff, in punitive damages and legal fees.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.