Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anthony

Anthony

Citizen
State Department
Homeland Security Department
Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Education Department
Supporter
Staff Legal Eagle
xAntho_ny
xAntho_ny
captain-department
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
471
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Town Of Oakridge
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On Feburary 18th, 2024, a bylaw named “The Really Really Boring Act” was made for the Town of Oakridge. A local crime called “Treason” was made and the description was “The Act of running /spawn-oakridge while having the username "GoldBlooded." The constitution states “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.” The Town of Oakridge broke Part IV of the Commonwealth of Redmont constitution


I. PARTIES
1.The Commonwealth of Redmont (Plaintiff)
2. The Town of Oakridge (Defendant)
3. zLost (Creator of the bylaw)

II. FACTS
1. The “The Really Really Boring Act” was created on Feburary 18th, 2024
2. A Local Crime called Treason was made and the description was “The Act of running /spawn-oakridge while having the username "GoldBlooded."
3. This breaks Part IV of the Commonwealth of Redmont constitution.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The “The Really Really Boring Act” breaks Part IV of the Constitution as all citizens have the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Strike “The Really Really Boring Act” as unconstitutional.

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 23rd day of March 2024
 
Seal_Judiciary.png




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

The Defendant must appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

The Town of Oakridge
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant affirms that the “The Really Really Boring Act” was created on Feburary 18th, 2024
2. The Defendant affirms that a Local Crime called Treason was made and the description was “The Act of running /spawn-oakridge while having the username "GoldBlooded."
3. The Defendant does not affirm or dispute that this breaks Part IV of the Commonwealth of Redmont constitution.


II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence has no defence.

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 24th day of March 2024

1711297418572.png
 
Last edited:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR TRIAL BY COMBAT

The Town of Oakridge wishes to do a trial by combat to settle this case.
 
Your Honor, I apologize. I meant to affirm the first 2 facts but accidently wrote "dispute". If possible, may I amend my answer to complaint?
 
Does the Commonwealth wish to participate in the request for Trial by Combat?
 
zLost said:
Your Honor, I apologize. I meant to affirm the first 2 facts but accidently wrote "dispute". If possible, may I amend my answer to complaint?
Click to expand...
The request is approved. You are able to edit the answer to the complaint accordingly.
 
The court thanks you for providing the answer to the complaint.

We will now transition into a 7-day discovery period. Should either party wish to end discovery early, please note that both parties will need to consent.
 
The plaintiff would like to enter the following evidence:
"XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status" (click here)

Act of Council - The Really Really Boring Act

A BILL To Amend the Oakridge Bylaws The citizens of Oakridge, through their elected Representatives in the Town-Council and the force of law ordained to that Town-Council by the people through the constitution of Oakridge, do hereby enact the following provisions into the by-laws: 1 - Short...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net
 
Nacho said:
Does the Commonwealth wish to participate in the request for Trial by Combat?
Click to expand...
We would not like a trial by combat.
 
The request by the plaintiff is denied as both parties did not agree.
 
With the conclusion of discovery, the court will now transition into opening statements.

The plaintiff has 48 hours to submit their opening statements before the court.
 
You're honor
May I get a 24 hour extension to file a opening statement.
 
Anthony said:
You're honor
May I get a 24 hour extension to file a opening statement.
Click to expand...

I will give you 12 hours to provide the opening statement, as you missed the 24-hour extension regardless of whether I accepted it.
 
As the plaintiff failed to meet the deadline provided by the court, we will be skipping their ability to file an opening statement.

xAntho_ny is found in contempt for failure to provide the opening statement.

The defense has 48 hours to provide their opening statement to the court.
 
The defense is found in contempt for failing to provide its opening statement within the time frame provided by the court.

As both parties have failed to provide an opening statement to the court, the court requests both parties to reaffirm their interest in wishing to see this case continue.

The court's primary function is to resolve legal uncertainties by carefully considering the arguments presented by both sides. However, if both parties fail to present their cases, the court is left with little choice but to consider dismissing the case. The court is now awaiting a compelling reason from the plaintiff to continue with the proceedings.

I will give the plaintiff 48 hours to provide a justified reason to the court to continue with the case due to the lack of engagement.
 
Hello you're honor
I am sorry for the delays on my end and it should not happen again. The plaintiff is still interested in doing this case.
 
Anthony said:
Hello you're honor
I am sorry for the delays on my end and it should not happen again. The plaintiff is still interested in doing this case.
Click to expand...
I am extremely disappointed that it had to get to this point.

If neither side objects, I will award both parties the opportunity to present their opening statements to the case.

The Plaintiff can present their opening statement within the next 48 hours.
 
You're honor

We would like to request a summary judgement
 
With the recusal of Chief Justice Nacho, I will be taking over as the presiding judge in this case. The court will be in Recess until a verdict is rendered.
 

Verdict



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. The Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 45

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The “The Really Really Boring Act” breaks Part IV of the Constitution as all citizens have the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Offered no defense as they dispute no facts.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Constitution of the Commonwealth is the supreme law of the land, this being said that means it take precedence over any federal or local law/bylaw.
2. Specifically the constitution says "XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status"
3. The Bylaw that the Town of Oakridge passed clearly violates this by singling out a specific person/group of people with this name, therefore not offering them equal protection.


IV. DECISION
1. It is the ruling of this court that i find in Favor of the Plaintiff and hereby order that the bylaw entitled The Really Really Boring Act (Link) be struck down as unconstitutional and that effective immediately it stop being enforced.
2. The court also orders the Town of Oakridge to undo any and all effects that this bylaw may have caused.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top