Lawsuit: Adjourned The Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
zLost

zLost

Citizen
Public Affairs Department
Education Department
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Grave Digger Change Maker Popular in the Polls
zLost
zLost
Event Manager
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
651
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

The Galactic Empire of Redmont (zLost representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honors, ask yourselves: Why does the DCT report builds? I believe, reasonably, that they report builds for the betterment of the city and to make plots available for those who treat them well. The DCT is tasked with evicting for eyesores because they are, of course, ugly, or “out of place” as we see later in this case.

DrThunder7 has publicly stated how much they hate the GER and now, acting on behalf of a government entity, decided to evict one of our most sacred buildings due to being an “eyesore”, for two reasons: being “out of place” and having “limited blocks”. The build is made of several different types of stone, polished blocks, and variations of quartz blocks, as well as many windows and red carpets and greenery to decorate it. It resembles that of the Capitol building, which is surely not an eyesore. Now for the “out of place” complaint: It is designed to have a perimeter fence typical of a fortified area, military base, or fenced-off building. These are seen quite frequently in cities - irl, I live on a military base surrounded by a large fence and guard towers. Mansions are fenced off by tall gates and walls to prevent burglars. Are these out of place in cities? I think not.

Besides, if it were truly an eyesore that was reported to better the aesthetic of the city, then why would so many people enjoy the build? There are people coming to hang out there all the time - people enjoy climbing into the display TIE Fighters, sitting down in the lobby, or chatting in the cafeteria. A well-known financial institution, Discover Bank, has also invested into setting up ATMs due to the high traffic and popularity of this venue.

Will this misconduct be allowed to stand? I think not.

I. PARTIES

1. The Galactic Empire of Redmont (GER)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS

1. The Department of Construction and Transport falsely marked buildings made by GER and its members, claiming that they did not meet the building codes, whereas the buildings did meet the standards.
2. MehLife_, a member of GER, built a structure that was marked as an eyesore by DCT for merely having a purple and pink color theme. The DCT asked him to change the color to another color. When he changed the color to red and black, it was considered acceptable by DCT.
3. The GER navy base was marked as out of place for the city due to it being a military base in the middle of the city. DrThunder7, the building inspector who made the report, has publicly expressed hate towards GER and said that he reports buildings when he needs money.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The actions of the DCT were under misconduct, as all building inspectors are required to conduct fair and unbiased evaluations of structures.
2. The actions of DrThunder7 were under misconduct, as his actions were motivated by personal bias and financial gain.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The GER navy base and similar builds in the future should not be evicted.
2. An investigation into the conduct of DrThunder7, and appropriate disciplinary action to be taken if found guilty of violating the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

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 January 2023.
 

Attachments

  • 1677016025457.png
    1677016025457.png
    343.5 KB · Views: 172
  • 1677016100108.png
    1677016100108.png
    537.4 KB · Views: 186
  • 1677016114897.png
    1677016114897.png
    589.2 KB · Views: 187
  • 1677016129915.png
    1677016129915.png
    47.3 KB · Views: 172
  • 1677016152536.png
    1677016152536.png
    27.8 KB · Views: 158
  • 1677016770540.png
    1677016770540.png
    15.3 KB · Views: 169
Last edited:
EMERGENCY INJUCTION

We request that the Department of Construction and Transport is enjoined from evicting the GER's navy base located at plot c279 until the conclusion of the pending case. This injunctive relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the Plaintiff during the pendency of the case.
 
federal-court-png.12082




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of The Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

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.​
 
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor, Opposing Council.

In this case it is stating that the building was unlawfully reported. The Opposing Council also states that the build is similar to other builds that have remained a staple in the City and in fact owned by the Commonwealth. There is also accusations of DrThunder7 doing this due to prior interactions of the GER. The last accusation is that MehLife_ (ProNeonYT current username) build should not have been reported and that it was DrThunder7 attacking a GER member.

To counter the first argument of the build being unlawfully reported. The build is not unlawfully reported. In case FCR 16 (link in Exhibit A) we see that in the Courts Opinion it does state that Eyesore is a valid reason to report. Another opinion is that although vague in the terms of an eye sore DrThunder7 did in fact list reasons as to why it was marked as an eye sore.

For the issue on similar builds. The build although being in a similar block palette to say the Capitol, we can see (exhibit B and C) that not all blocks are in the reported build and that the way the blocks are used is different including the amount of detail on just the exterior. This may be on a bigger scale than what is possible on the size of plot the Opposing Council however on even smaller plots we can see detail (notably plots by FlyingBlocks).

The accusations surrounding DrThunder7 reporting the build due to prior interactions with the GER and its members. This is simply untrue. The proof of DrThunder7 stating to block the registration may be true however, we can see (exhibit D) that DrThunder7 dislikes parties all around. Even stating to remove the Party system. If there are matters of DrThunder7 disliking the GER even further is a matter of opinion with no proof. The full matter is showing that DrThunder7 simply dislikes parties all around.

The last accusation we are contesting in this dismissal is, MehLife_'s build being reported due to clash of colors. A clash of colors is something no one wants, in art its a very big part to keep out clashing colors and make art blend smooth (unless you are going for it). A color clash is something that differs from person to person and what would consider to clash however, if there were builds with very differing colors all over the city it would not blend smoothly (even if still crazy color combinations). You would not want to have brown and yellow in a city of mostly primary/cool color tones.

In conclusion we can see that the build was not unlawfully reported and that the DCT can in fact report builds for eye sores especially when providing reasons as to why, even though same block palette does not mean same detail or seen as an eye sore, DrThunder7 dislikes parties all around and not just the GER, A clash of colors can still be a reason to report as you would not want brown on top of yellow. To simply put the lawsuit is a matter of wanting to be exempt from the law/DCT Policy.

Exhibit A - Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 16

Exhibit B, C, and D all in the following link and in order of evidence -
https://imgur.com/a/HLb2Ldr
 
forgot to attach exhibit D. Apologies and it will not happen again.

1677557017457.png
 
Your Honor, may we respond to the motion to dismiss?
 
You may
 
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
You Honor, while it may be true that DrThunder7 dislikes all parties, not just the GER, it does not negate the fact that he could still be biased against any party member, including those from GER. In fact, DrThunder7 has shown specific hate towards the GER which he has not shown towards any other parties.

Furthermore, the claim that ProNeonYT's (I will be referring to MehLife_ as ProNeonYT from now on as they have changed their username, if it does not bother the court) building was reported due to "clashing colors" is incorrect. Purple and pink are not necessarily clashing colors. In fact, these two colors can complement each other quite nicely

Regarding the GER building, we argue that it should be protected by the right to political communication. The building effectively communicates what the GER stands for, and as such, should not be subject to arbitrary reporting by the DCT.

Along with this, the images of the GER navy base are purposely taken from such angles that make it seem like only one or two block types had been used. If we see in this image:
1677695530098.png

There is plenty of diversity in the block types, and the only reason for why it may look like only one or two block types have been used is if the building is seen for far away. Does this not hold true for every building? Even buildings owned by the commonwealth such as the capitol can look as if they use only one or two block type when seen from far away.

The definition for an eyesore is listed as:
"Eyesores are buildings that look ugly or don’t fit into the city in another way. Such as;
- Looks like a box or pyramid.
- Limited windows. (e.g. no windows, or only one wall with windows, etc.)
- Clutter on the property (e.g. barrels, shulkers, furnaces, etc.)
- Constructed from limited, basic materials. (e.g. dirt, cobblestone, etc.)
- A commercial property in a residential area or vice versa (e.g. A house next to skyscrapers or a skyscraper next to - suburban houses)
- The building isn’t structurally sound, (e.g. contains floating pieces or large unsupported overhangs).
- Uses too many, potentially clashing, colors and/or materials.
- The Interior is unrealistic or wildly out of place in a city.
- The ground surrounding the building on the region is made of plain stone."

The GER navy base does not fall under any of the examples given, it is not "ugly" and it does fit into the city for which we have given reasons above in the lawsuit. Additionally, even if the build was out of place in the city, the only eyesore thing about being wildly out of place is when it mentions the INTERIOR. The base’s interior is perfectly normal for any city build.
 
zLost said:
EMERGENCY INJUCTION

We request that the Department of Construction and Transport is enjoined from evicting the GER's navy base located at plot c279 until the conclusion of the pending case. This injunctive relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the Plaintiff during the pendency of the case.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, the emergency injunction remains unanswered.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Opposing Council has stated that it was the angle that gave off the inference of one or two diverse blocks however the building report by DrThunder7 itself does show different blocks (Exhibit C also at the bottom). The Opposing Council also opened a DCT ticket following the publishing of the lawsuit where DrThunder7 explains what needs to change and explaining what can be done (Exhibit E).

The Opposing Council argues that the building does not break any of the codified eye sore report examples ("such as"). Given in the plot regulations information (Exhibit F) it states such as it means a plot can be reported as eye sore for many reasons and the reasons listed are examples. Below are a couple reasons I noticed the build can be reported for after a quick look in game.

The building also has parts that are very square (the head in the center) something maybe not as noticeable yet there.
The building does not have a very diverse block palette as is limited with blocky attributes.

The block palette of a building is not questioned from far away, if it were then every building would be reported given the render distance will cut off half the building. Any and all buildings look worse from far away it is simply looking close that will dictate whether the building is deemed an eye sore or not.

In Summary the reasons listed are simply perjured against themselves or are misread from informative sources. Given this at least the portion including this should be struck and at most the entire response given it does commit perjury against parts from further in the case.

Exhibit C
1677980135637.png


Exhibit E
1677980087698.png


Exhibit F
1677980107421.png

 
MOTION TO STRIKE
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Opposing Council brings into argument freedom of political communication in their response to the Motion to Dismiss. If the Opposing Council wanted to use this argument the argument should have been brought into the original filing or saved for Opening Statements (if we pass to Opening Statements).

Given this I Motion to Strike the part (listed below) of the Opposing Councils Response as it has no right to be in a court case where the matter is merely regarding if the build is an eye sore or not.

1677980270285.png
 
Your Honor, may we respond to the objection and motion to strike?
 
You may, the response to the motion to dismiss will be posted in the following hours.
 
Your Honor, Opposing Council

24 hours has elapsed since the objection and motion to strike were posted thus the Defense asks that the Opposing side not be allowed to respond given this. The Defense would also like to know where the response to the Motion to Dismiss is given it has been over 24 hours since stated it would be posted in the following hours. The Defense is not trying to be pushy merely exercising the right to a speedy trial.
 
Your Honor, I would like to request a 24 hour extension for my response to the objection as I am travelling soon and have been busy with stuff such as renewing my passport over the past 2 days. I am assuming I was given 48 hours to write a response to the objection, as that is usually the time given for responses.
 
Additionally, Your Honor, may I have permission to attach new evidence that was not available when the lawsuit was first created, in my response to the objection.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Your Honor, Opposing Council

24 hours has elapsed since the objection and motion to strike were posted thus the Defense asks that the Opposing side not be allowed to respond given this. The Defense would also like to know where the response to the Motion to Dismiss is given it has been over 24 hours since stated it would be posted in the following hours. The Defense is not trying to be pushy merely exercising the right to a speedy trial.
Click to expand...
I apologize, the response will be posted by tonight
 
zLost said:
Your Honor, I would like to request a 24 hour extension for my response to the objection as I am travelling soon and have been busy with stuff such as renewing my passport over the past 2 days. I am assuming I was given 48 hours to write a response to the objection, as that is usually the time given for responses.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, there was no response to the request for this extension.
 
Your honors, I understand it is generally not considered my turn to speak, however I would like to inform you that my plot has been evicted due to staff not knowing there was an emergency injunction on this plot.
 
Your Honor,

We have still not heard the verdict on the Motion to Dismiss approved or denied. This has come after 2 failed promises to post, over a week of waiting, long response times, and not responding to an objection and motion.

I understand things can get busy irl however you have not stated that you would be busy and have again promised for updates.

I know this is unorthodox as well however I would like to respond to what Yeet_Boy has said. It is simply on that it was a staff matter and out of the Commonwealth/Court control and a staff ticket should be opened to get the plot pasted back in and the injunction fulfilled.
 
The previous judge has recused himself from this case. For that reason, I will be taking over. Once I read through the case we will move forward with the remainder of the case.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss, as while the reasons listed for eviction are valid reasons, the Plaintiff is arguing that those reasons did not apply to their building. And the possibility of a bias in the reporting still exists.
 
I will be rejecting the objection of perjury as there is no reason to believe that the Plaintiff knowingly lied about the facts to the court.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to strike as the Plaintiff can bring up any argument. There is no rule requiring them to post about all of their arguments in their case filing. (This rule only exists for evidence, and there are many exceptions.)
 
We will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.

As for the eviction from the plot, I recommend creating a staff ticket to attempt to get the plot back due to the injunction.
 
Your Honor, I apologize for this but may I have an extension of 48 hours?

I have just yesterday landed in another country and the wifi here is incredibly slow in my hotel, but in around 1-2 days I will reach my cousins home where the wifi will be better.

I spent 45 minutes simply trying to open this forum page, as I had to keep retrying and refreshing this page.
 
You may have a 48 hour extension from your when you were asked, but no more time after this.
 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Commonwealth has been more than patient in this case. The Opposing Council has also had a week to write an opening statement and have it prepared. I understand a 24 hour extension however 48 hours when it has been over a week is unacceptable. Everyone has the right to a fair and speedy trial and this is less than speedy.

The Commonwealth is okay with 24 hours and an extra 24 if needed however a whole 96 hours to post a opening statement on top of a week beforehand is too much. Given this the Commonwealth asks that the Opposing Council has 24 hours on top of the 24 for a total of 72 not 96.
 
The motion to reconsider has been approved. While it’s not the fault of the Plaintiff that this case has had a large delay, they have also had a decent amount of time to prepare an opening statement. And the reason for needing the extension being poor wifi still allows one to post on the thread.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours from now to post an opening statement.
 
Your Honor, may I have permission to attach an image of a conversation that happened after the case had been filed in my opening statement?
 
You may.
 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor, Opposing Council

Earlier in the case the Opposing Council was denied the option of being able to provide new evidence by the previous Presiding Judge Aladeen22. Given this why should the Opposing Council be allowed to add new evidence? There was already a Precedent set in the case showing that the Opposing Council may not add new evidence.

Aladeen said:
you may not
Click to expand...
 
I will be denying the motion to reconsider. No reason was given the first time as to why the Plaintiff couldn’t provide new evidence.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the eviction notice is arbitrary and based on personal bias, and therefore, interpreting the policy, which is something the DCT as a part of the executive cannot do according to the precedent set by the case below.

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 97

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Dartanman Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff believes that the Even Moderner Legal Board Act is unconstitutional, as it gives a certain (albeit small) amount of executive power to the...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

Along with this, the issue of the iron bar fence which was listed in the eviction notice has already been solved in this conversation between Galavance and Yeet_Boy in a DCT ticket, with Yeet_Boy having done more pillars and sideway chains instead of cobwebs, as Galavance requested.

Your Honor, I apologize for how short this opening statement is and how long it took, but if I were to say anything else I would simply be repeating stuff I have said before
 
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, Opposing Council,

The Opposing Council's time to give an Opening Statement passed yesterday (around 15 hours as of posting this). Given this the Commonwealth believes the Opening Statement should be struck.
 
I will be accepting this motion to strike. Not only did the Plaintiff fail to post his opening statement in the allotted time, but he also missed the time for the original extension that he wanted. For that reason, the Plaintiffs opening statement has been stricken from the record and will not be considered when writing a verdict.

The Defense now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
OPENING STATEMENT
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The argument from the Opposing Council is whether or not the building is deemed an eyesore (among other claims). In order to answer that we need to ask what are some examples of what would make a building an eyesore? We also need to ask did the Opposing Council at all take time to open a DCT ticket or other means before filing a case? With these questions in mind lets look at the evidence and facts of the case.

Whether the build would be deemed an eyesore is fully subjective. In the sense that from one person to another it could or could not be deemed an eyesore. The Opposing Council believes it is not whereas DrThunder7 deems it an eyesore. In Exhibit F we can see the list of examples of what could be considered an eyesore. I would like to emphasize the "such as" in the Evidence. One of the examples listed is limited materials which most would argue the walls are made out of, This is also a reason DrThunder7 gave when the Opposing Council opened a DCT Ticket (Exhibit E).

If the Opposing Council changed the fencing with more diverse blocks then that issue would be fixed if they wished to keep the wall. For the other limited block palette all the Opposing Council would have to do is maybe add more gray tones in the building itself and more depth to the build and more detail on the roof (some personal ideas).

On the matter of the Opposing Council not exhausting all avenues of communication before filing a lawsuit. In Exhibit E we can see that messages were shown on February 25 pinging MsGeorgia then pinging DrThunder7 to respond to the ticket. In the filing of the case we can clearly see the date of February 21st. On the original filing of the eviction report (Exhibit G) that the Opposing Council did state they would like to challenge where they were then told to go into a DCT ticket for on the same day the lawsuit was published.

In Conclusion the entire lawsuit was filed after being upset on the forums that the build got reported then filing a lawsuit not long after opening a DCT ticket (if one was opened before the lawsuit). The Opposing Council hadn't exhausted all methods of challenging the eviction before filing the lawsuit and avenues were made to allow the Opposing Council to help make the build not reportable for being an eyesore and showing that the reasons for eyesore evictions are all examples.

Exhibit E
1678929881592.png


Exhibit F
1678928946352.png


Exhibit G
 
Thank you to the Defendant for their opening statements. We will now move on to witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours to provide their list of witnesses, or state that they have none.
 
dygyee said:
Thank you to the Defendant for their opening statements. We will now move on to witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours to provide their list of witnesses, or state that they have none.
Click to expand...
The plaintiff would like to call players Nexalin, xEndeavour, ANDREASP15, OakWinner, cheetahracer1, LieutenantDerp99, TheReal42Person, Justa_Dumpling, whiteboydonnie, Dartanman, FTGWop, JohnBarboza, ComradeJontaa, Tingle604, and TeuntjeMixer as witnesses.
 
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Commonwealth would like to call DrThunder7.
 
OBJECTION
Incompetence
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The following people have no need to be summoned given they are simply members of the GER which although a GER building does not mean they should be called. We do not call an entire department for a lawsuit against it so why call an entire party for an eviction.

The other people (Nexalin, xEndeavour, and Dartanman) are all not needed in this case or haven’t been mentioned past a lawsuit. To put it simply they do not need to be called given they have no relevance to the case. If xEndeavour is called as a staff member the Opposing Council failed to mention and why would staff need to be here? The most staff did was unknowingly evicting a plot they thought was eligible.

In conclusion the Commonwealth believes none of the Opposing Councils witnesses should be called given they have no or minimal relevance to the case. They may also have heard it from someone else and minimal idea of what is happening.
 
Your Honor, may we respond to the objection? I assure you that we won’t take longer than 12-24 hours.
 
Your Honor, in the response to the objection we will simply list the reason for each witness.
 
You may respond to the objection. You have 24 hours to do so.
 
Response to Objection

Your Honor, from what I know, there is no limit to how many witnesses you can call as long as they are relevant to the case.

Each witness has a reason for being called, which I have listed below.

Nexalin - They are an entrepreneur who wished to set up ATMs at the navy base, due to how much they liked it.
xEndeavour - They were the former DCT secretary.
FTGWop - They are a citizen who visit the navy base often.
Everyone else - These are all people who knew of the eviction report before the lawsuit, and would be affected greatly if the navy base were to be evicted.

Your Honor, we would like to withdraw Dartanman from the witness list, realizing that they are not that relevant to the case.
 
I will be partly accepting the motion. I will still be allowing Nexalin, xEndeavour, and FTGWop to testify as well as 1 person from the category that zLost called “Everybody else” in his response to the motion. As there is no reason to have close to 10 witnesses all being called for the same reason.

zLost this means if you want someone from that category, you have 24 hours to list who you would like to call from the “Everybody else” category.
 
Your Honor, I would like to call TheReal42Person from the category.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

Nexalin, xEndeavour, FTGWop, TheReal42Person, and DrThunder7 are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Galactic Empire of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27 as witnesses.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff will have 48 hours to post all of their questions to their witnesses (DrThunder7 not included).

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top