Lawsuit: Adjourned SupremeBird v. Block335 [2020] DCR 5

[M_Lasai]

N THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION


SupremeBird (_Dark_Helmet_ Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Block335
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

In the Plaintiff's own words:

"The conflict started when Block335 came onto my property after I had been telling him to leave. Due to previous interactions from earlier that day I chose to ban him and his friends from my store. There is a clear sign that is by the front door indicating this ban. However, Block335 chose to ignore this sign and approached me to purchase iron. I told him we are not doing business on my plot. He then continues to prod at me and ask me for business. I had to repeatedly ask him to leave and he refused. I even directly stated at him "Block leave," and he ignored it. I continued with him telling him to leave and then decided to ignore him until he left."

The Plaintiff , SupremeBird, alleges that the Defendant, Block335, violated a property owned by SupremeBird and refused to leave. The Plaintiff repeatedly asked the Defendant to leave their property, and the defendant refused.

I. PARTIES
1. SupremeBird, a citizen of DemocracyCraft
2. Block335, a citizen of DemocracyCraft

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff, SupremeBird, owns the property r-046 on the corner of Majura Ramble and Munoz Street.
2. The Defendant entered the property owned by SupremeBird despite the sign posted stating the defendant is banned.
3. The Plaintiff repeatedly asked the Defendant to leave their property.
4. The Defendant refused to leave the property.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The laws of DemocracyCraft define trespassing as the following:

To enter or be in the place without the consent of the owner, occupier or person having control or management of the place; or to remain in the place after being requested by a person in authority to leave the place. Failure to comply with the demands or any signs grants the owner legal permission of initiating PvP, provided they can prove the trespasser was warned prior.

2. Under this law, the Plaintiff is entitled to prevent the Defendant from entering their property. However, the Plaintiff is unwilling to use PvP against the Defendant. Therefore the Defendant is seeking the intervention of the Department of Justice to keep the Defendant off their property.
...

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A permanent injunction against the defendant (Block 335) preventing them from entering the Plaintiff 's(SupremeBird) property.
2. Punitive damages of 120 dollars to be paid to the Plaintiff (SupremeBird) by the defendant (Block 335).

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if possible)

Spoiler: Evidence of SupremeBird requesting Block335 to leave, and Block335's refusal.

Spoiler: SupremeBird's Posted Sign

Spoiler: Transcript of SupremeBird and Block335

SupremeBird - You are Banned please leave
Block335 - Please?
SupremeBird - You have lost my trust all business will be done outside this plot please leave Block335 - cmon man?
Block335 - I'm sorry for breaking in your property
SupremeBird - Leave
Block335 cmon
Block335 -
SupremeBird - Leave block

Spoiler: Contract between SupremeBird and _Dark_Helmet_

Please note: Sqip is the Discord name used by SupremeBird

DATED: Fri. 17 July 2020

 

[Element]

Defendant Block335 is hereby summoned to the court of DemocracyCraft to testify in Case No. 07-2020-03. If the defendant does not testify within 24 hours of this message, a default judgement will be made in favor of the plaintiff.

 

[Block335]

Response to SupremeBird:
"The conflict started when Block335 came onto my property after I had been telling him to leave. Due to previous interactions from earlier that day I chose to ban him and his friends from my store. There is a clear sign that is by the front door indicating this ban. However, Block335 chose to ignore this sign and approached me to purchase iron. I told him we are not doing business on my plot. He then continues to prod at me and ask me for business. I had to repeatedly ask him to leave and he refused. I even directly stated at him "Block leave," and he ignored it. I continued with him telling him to leave and then decided to ignore him until he left."

Response: Yes, I was banned from his property from previous interactions (e.g. raiding his house). But what you have failed to mention is that I actually apologized to you for violating your property. In addition to that, I also encouraged my other colleagues to leave his property alone, which went pretty successful. However, due to my financial situations like not having enough resources to make our items, I kindly asked if he or his allies had any iron ingots to offer us, but Supremebirds' response was very condescending and just very impolite and the fact that he sued me when I had to leave the game and without any indication of this event occurring. In addition to my apology to him, he said he will forgive me if he decides to, which I actually accepted and ran off (you also forgot to mention this as well). However, him creating a lawsuit just because I stepped on a piece of grass doesn't justify this lawsuit.

Conclusion: Overall, Supremebird I think you are a great guy, I think we should brush this off on our chests and forget about it. Filing a lawsuit against a person who is financially in a crisis right now is a scummy move.

 

[M_Lasai]

Objection your honor: The defendant's response consists entirely of testimony and argument, and is therefore in violation of established protocol. I would like to have all of the above testimony stricken from the record.

 

[zLost]

so who won the case? im still curious

 

[Element]

The case has not yet been decided. zLost, you are in contempt of court and will be charged a $20 fine by the Department of Justice. The court overrules the plaintiff's objection, as there is no official template for a defendant's response. The court hereby summons both parties to provide witnesses and/or evidence in this case. If either party has witnesses, they must respond to this case with a list of witnesses they choose to question and the set of questions that they would like to ask each witness. If a party does not have witnesses, they may reply with the statement "This party has no witnesses to question." In addition, both parties must provide all evidence at this stage. If a party does not have evidence, they may reply with the statement "This party has no additional evidence to bring to the court's attention." If either party does not reply with witnesses and/or evidence within 24 hours, a default judgement will be made.

 

[M_Lasai]

Your Honor, I would like to call my client SupremeBird to the stand and ask him the following questions:

1. How do you know the Defendant?

2. Can you please describe your relationship with the defendant?

3. What happened the day of the incident (Fri. 17 July 2020)?

4. Do you have a sign posted on your property denying entry to the Defendant's property?

5. Can you please describe the impact the Defendant's conduct has had on your personal life and mental state?

6. What sort of compensation do you feel is best for the Defendant's actions?

7. Is there anything else you would like to add?



I would additionally like to provide the following screenshots as a factual basis for my client's testimony

 

[Element]

Due to the defendant not responding within 24 hours, this case is hereby adjourned in favor of the plaintiff. The court orders the DoJ to fine Block335 $120 and then un-fine the amount to the plaintiff. In addition, the court is ordering a permanent injunction against the defendant which will disallow them to enter the plaintiff's property. The injunction will be posted below once the presiding judge has authored it.