Lawsuit: Dismissed RelaxedGV v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 20

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RelaxedGV
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The DOS is only allowing citizens who took the residency exam vote in the Mayoral election. In the Oakridge By laws it states that "Citizens that own or rent any type of property in the town of Oakridge Bay are eligible to vote" despite this fact they have decided to hold the election and only allow citizens that took the residency exam. By doing this they are stopping eligible citizens from voting. When the President was told about this they stated that only citizens that take the residency exam may vote.

I. PARTIES
1. RelaxedGV (Plaintiff)
2. MartyRay (witness)
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The DOS is having only citizens who took the residency exam be able to vote in the Mayor election.
2. The Oakridge Bay By Laws state that anyone who owns any property can vote.
3. The DOS is breaking the By Laws put in place by the town

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The By Laws put in by Oakridge Bay

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Allowing citizens who own/rent a property in the town able to vote
2. $100 in legal fines

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 27th day of February 2022

 

[nnmc]

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

@Neemfy as Solicitor General is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RelaxedGV v Commonwealth of Redmont

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Westray]

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

RelaxedGV
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Forums limitations do not allow for the government to account for players who own or rent properties.
2. Passing a resident exam impedes on zero rights because the exam is a two-question test that simply asks the player if they agree to follow the bylaws of each town. Any player interested in participating in the town's democratic process simply needs to complete the exam and agree to the town's regulations.
3. The evidence in reference is in relation to an outdated local town constitution that does not take into consideration the current electoral processes. For instance, there is no such thing as a "registered voter list" in this forums-based election.
4. The government holds full authority over local elections in the instance of a vacancy of a mayor in accordance with Executive Order 38/21 and countless other older orders, highlighted with the clause in green:

the town Constitution will dictate the method of replacement unless otherwise provided by Cabinet

5. The former Mayor, still with time in his term left, also granted the authority stating:

"I have requested that the DOS hold an election for my replacement."
- Rurge, Former Mayor of Oakridge.

5. While I sympathize with the Plaintiff's concerns to vote, you must be an official resident to vote in official elections. This is an official town election sanctioned by the State Department. It has been defined in countless government documents that an official resident constitutes someone who has passed a resident exam.
7. Aside from the authority of the government, to even allow anyone to vote based on owning property in Oakridge Bay may become problematic as one can simply rent a chestshop in the town and vote. These elections are protected by mandating that a player must complete an exam and agree to the town's regulations.
8. While it is true that the government continues to allow towns to dictate methods of election via google forms or other sites, this is not the case in which the mayor is vacant. Given the circumstances the Department of State felt it was necessary to utilize the official forums process, as it was already something that the town was transitioning to (as evidenced by the test House of Beans election).
9. We urge the court to dismiss this case as to not interfere with the ongoing elections. In addition, to justify this case would be in direct contravention of the executive order establishing towns and the process regarding mayoral replacements.

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 28th day of February 2022

 

[nnmc]

@RelaxedGV you have 48 hours from now to make a response to the motion to dismiss, if you wish to do so. Otherwise please inform the court if you will not be making a response.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

RelaxedGV
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

REBUTTAL

1. The Constitution may be outdated in the town but it is still the only Constitution that the town has and so this is still in effect within the town.
2. Moving to the forums may be able to deliver a cleaner election in some instances but, the Commonwealth is forgetting that the town's Constitution still stands along with the ByLaws.
3. Including the residency exam is nice and all but removing an entire part of the ByLaws that are still in effect, would be thinking that the whole Constitution of Oakridge Bay is not needed and shouldn't be followed. This would be setting a precedent in a negative way and would mean that a lot of cases going forward would not be able to use the Constitution as a form of evidence as it can just be ignored.
4. Yes you can rent a shop in the town to vote but that is also what a lot of people use to sell goods and services. The town has a lot of plots but due to Building Inspectors not going to the town as frequently as Hamilton the town doesn't get a lot of plots being sold or evicted.
5. I never stated that the residency exam impeded on citizens rights but in fact that not allowing citizens who rent/own a property are not allowed to vote in the election.
6. In the past at the time of a new Mayor election the town of Oakridge Bay has done the election via google forms or other means. Yes the forums are a good place to hold all of the elections it is still changing the ByLaws that the town has. While yes the tracking of a property is hard to manage but not impossible as lots of players don't tend to buy/sell property within the town. The Defendant is trying to make it seem that tracking some plots will be an impossible task despite one of their own government departments (the DCT) doing that exact thing everyday with their Building Inspectors.

DATED: This 28th Day of February 2022

 

[nnmc]

The motion to dismiss is rejected because it does not sufficiently prove inaccuracy or frivolity of the plaintiff's case.

@Westray @RelaxedGV please provide opening statements within 48 hours from now.

 

[Westray]

Your honour, this case has zero basis. As expressed in the motion to dismiss, there is limited jurisdiction from the town's outdated constitution. The Plaintiff's case is inaccurate.

Forums Limitations
There is no way to account for residents other than that of official exam-defined residents, because that is the only way that roles are able to sync to the forums.

Constitutional Authority
The government has the authority in Executive Order 38/21 to dictate the method of replacement, as specified:

the town Constitution will dictate the method of replacement unless otherwise provided by Cabinet

This means that the government holds the constitutional and executive order authority to determine the process of an election of a new Mayor. Towns are facilitated by the executive government. Precedent has even established this as the executive has dissolved towns in the past, including Sumner.

The Plaintiff's case is inaccurate because it brings the claim that the town constitution holds more authority over the executive order that established the concept of towns.

Desuetude
If the court cannot acknowledge the authority of the executive order, they must at least consider the concept of desuetude.

The Oakridge Bay constitution referenced on the forums by the Plaintiff was last updated on October 28 2021. In this time, the official definition has changed for resident across the nation. In fact, the constitution still refers to the federal government as the "Government of DemocracyCraft" despite the name of the Commonwealth of Redmont amended into almost all statute law over a year ago.

In addition, the previous Oakridge Bay government has failed to even properly enforce the constitution, holding elections for their council at inconsistent times in contravention of the town's constitution.

The fact is that the Oakridge Bay constitution is severely outdated, hasn't been enforced properly, and has posed little relevance. It would be appropriate to apply the doctrine of desuetude which renders a law invalid should it be considered as a result of a habit of non-enforcement and a lapse of time.

Severe Consequences to Continuance
With all due respect your honour I would ask you to re-reconsider the motion to dismiss. To allow this case to continue further would be to give legitimacy to a claim that undermines governmental authority in contravention of the constitution and the town executive orders. Town constitutions should not be able to supersede the constitutional authorities of the federal government.

 

[nnmc]

You are presenting a counter-argument here. You have failed to prove any major inaccuracy in the fundamental facts of the case that would merit an immediate dismissal.

Once again, the motion to dismiss is rejected. Please move on to opening statements.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I would like the rescind the case.

 

[nnmc]

Case dismissed without prejudice, at the request of the plaintiff.

Thank you to all parties for your time.