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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am present and have familiarized myself with the case, as I have been watching it.
 
Present, I am familiar with this case already
 
Your Honor, Opposing Council

Respectfully I have been made aware that xEndeavour is currently unable to attend the Court Case given he will be out for 3 weeks. Given that the Opposing Council would like a DCT Secretaries point of view I suggest current DCT Secretary Rurge. I do not mean to speak out of line just feel as though this should be made aware before going forward (and before issuing a Contempt of Court charge if one is given to xEndeavour).
 
ZLost, as 3 weeks is too long to wait, you can either choose to not call xEndeavour as a witness, or you may choose to call a different witness to replace xEndeavour. You have 48 hours from now to make your decision.
 
Your Honor, we would like to call LAKottke, a BI, in place of xEndeavour.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

@LAKottke is 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 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.​
 
All witnesses have 48 hours from now to state that they are present if they have not done so already.
 
I would first like to request zLost to reconsider their decision due to my current state of business and illness. However, if there is no other verdict reached, I will stay present.
 
Your Honor, we accept LaKottke's request and would like to call no one in place of him.
 
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The 48 hours has passed and Nexalin and FTGWop have not showed up.
 
I hereby charge Nexalin and FTGWop with 1 count of contempt of court each and order the DOJ to punish them appropriately.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post all of their questions for all of the witnesses except for DrThunder7. I would also like to inform both parties that LAKottke has not been relieved of his duties and can still be asked questions by both parties.
 
Questions for TheReal42Person:

1. In your opinion, do you believe the GER navy base is an eyesore and out of place in the city? Why or why not?
2. What do you think about the popularity of the GER navy base among the community and its visitors?
3. Have you had any personal interactions or conflicts with DrThunder7 prior to the eviction report being filed?
4. Can you explain how the eviction of the GER navy base would affect you personally?
 
OBJECTION
Incompetence
Your Honor, Opposing Council

To put it simply, TheReal42Person was brought on as someone who would be greatly affected by the removal of the build. Given this all questions by the Opposing Council should be struck and not be allowed to be questioned given the reason TheReal42Person was brought on. Given this the Commonwealth wants these questions completely removed and for new questions to be asked.
 
I will be accepting this objection for the first question only as the first question isn’t relevant to the case as a building being an eyesore isn’t an opinion but rather if it meets the criteria set by the DOT.

TheReal42Person, you have 48 hours from now to answer all but the first question.
 
1. In your opinion, do you believe the GER navy base is an eyesore and out of place in the city? Why or why not?
(Do not answer)

2. What do you think about the popularity of the GER navy base among the community and its visitors?
I think that the GER navy base is a popular place to be among the members of the GER and some people who visit it. I personally have not seen many visitors there but almost everyone who works in the GER navy has been there at some point for whatever business they may have had.

3. Have you had any personal interactions or conflicts with DrThunder7 prior to the eviction report being filed?
I have never had any personal conflicts with DrThunder7, although I interact with him in Congress and we have debated over bills in the past. Outside of Congress and the #politics channel, I do not really interact with him.

4. Can you explain how the eviction of the GER navy base would affect you personally?
The removal of the GER navy base would affect me because I am a Lieutenant for the navy and the GER navy base is my workspace. We would have to find a different place to store belongings to the navy, which we do not yet have.
 
OBJECTION #1
Calls for a Conclusion

Question 2 asks for an opinion, and has no relevance to an eviction.

OBJECTION #2
Relevance

Question 4 is irrelevant. How an eviction will personally affect someone has no bearing on an eviction.
 
I will be accepting the objection for question number 4, and it has been stricken from the record.

I will be denying the first objection to strike question 2 as opinion questions are allowed to be asked.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to post all of their questions for any of the Plaintiff’s witnesses as well as DrThunder7.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Respectfully, Your Honor, the Objections guide states the definition of Calls for a Conclusion as "The questions asks for an opinion rather than facts."

1679783278217.png
 
I will be denying the motion to reconsider. An objection on the grounds of calling for a conclusion are when a witness is asked for their opinion that is not of importance. For example, question 1 was stricken because the opinion was whether or not the building was an eyesore. It’s not important what the witnesses opinion is on this, because it’s up to the judge to decide. However with that being said, opinion questions that do not call for a conclusion are still allowed so long as the witnesses opinion is based on personal knowledge.

This is a reminder that the Defendants time to post their questions to the witnesses has not changed.
 
I am present I didnt know I where a witness in this case
 
For TheReal42Person:

Is there any data to show that the GER Naval Base is a popular spot amongst the public and not just GER members?

For DrThunder7:

Why exactly did you report the build?
What all can be changed in the build to remove the eyesore report?
 
Both of the witnesses have 48 hours to answer their questions.
 
I do not know anyone who personally visits the navy base and there really isn't any proof that there is, however MilkLegend made a heatmap for DC that shows what areas are visited most. On this heat map, it does not show anything. :(
 
In the report I stated that the main building itself was built using limited materials and the iron fence was out of place in the city. I went into greater detail in a DCT ticket with Yeet_Boy. I explain that the main building was made of only quarts and that to correct the issue use more variety of blocks in the building itself. As for the iron fence with the cobwebs I suggested removing it entirely. This wasn’t in the report itself but in the dct ticket I did mention the flag was just a giant square which did contribute to the entire build being an eyesore.
 
In the next 48 hours, the Plaintiff must post their cross examination questions for DrThunder7 as well as any questions they have for FTGWop. If they have no questions for either party they must say so within the 48 hours.

The Defense may also ask a question to FTGWop either within these 48 hours, or because FTGWop is the Plaintiff’s witness, if they want to, they may wait until after the Plaintiff’s questions.
 
Questions for DrThunder7:
1. What is your opinion of the GER?
2. What is your opinion of the parties system entirely?
 
DrThunder7 has 48 hours to answer the Plaintiff’s questions, and the Defendant now has 48 hours to post all questions they have for FTGWop or state that they have none.
 
Sorry for the delay.

1. Currently I don’t really care for the GER. Neither a positive view or negative view

2. It’s known that I am not a huge fan of the party system. Personally I’d love for it to be removed but that’s my opinion. People over party.
 
Thank you to the witnesses for answering their questions.

The Defendant has failed to post their questions for FTGWop or failed to state that they have no questions for that witness. For that reason, I hereby charge RelaxedGV with 1 count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.

We will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours from now to post their closing statement.
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, while it is true that it could be argued that as there was only the quartz block type, the examples given for eyesore specifically state "limited, basic materials". The materials used in the building are definitely not basic, as they use a wide variety of quartz blocks. It is also important to note that the examples given are dirt, cobblestone, and other basic materials that do not compare to the unique and intricate design of the quartz block used in our client's building.

As such, the eviction notice is arbitrary, 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.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1068209506636533790/1081897061340946482/image.png
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff for their closing statement. The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
CLOSING STATEMENT
Your Honor, Opposing Council

Throughout this case we have seen the Opposing Council bring up different viewpoints and arguments however, one has remained constant. That the GER Naval Base is not an eyesore. In the Commonwealth's closing remarks they will explain fully as to how and why the GER Naval Base is considered an eyesore.

Iron Fence surrounding the Naval Base. According to the Opposing Council the iron fence surrounding the Naval Base has been fixed to the standards of the Department of Construction and Transportation. The Commonwealth can confirm that the Iron Fence is fixed and can be voided from the report. Although not the only issue the Commonwealth is happy this one issue has been fixed.

The Flag. The flag can easily be fixed by making it look like it was waving in the wind rather than sitting still. Although the text may be a little harder to read it would still be readable.

The Lack of Materials. This is a big topic. The building itself minus the TIE Fighters, head, and other exterior decor, has been limited to quartz. The building may have quartz pillar, quartz stairs, and other quartz blocks. The underlying fact is that the exterior of the building is made of quartz with no use of other blocks. I want to state again, minus all of the decor surrounding the main building.

DrThunder7 doing it for money/hate of GER. Although not a main reason of the lawsuit still something that has been questioned by the Opposing Council. DrThunder7 has stated they specifically do not like parties, not the GER in specific and solely the party system.

Executive cannot interpret law. The DCT Policy that states what an eyesore can be is DCT Policy and not a specific law. The law part is that the DCT can write an eviction report and get the build removed. What is an eyesore is up to the individual and not the Executive/Department as a whole. The Policy still states these as examples thus can be interpreted and not defined exactly what can/will be.

In Conclusion the Galactic Empire of Redmont is arguing their building is not an eyesore. Given the reasons they almost completely fit into the examples provided in what might be an eyesore. Again these are examples not specific reasons, the GER Building itself would still fit into lack of materials.
 
Thank you to the Defense for their closing statement, a verdict will be posted within the coming days.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Galactic Empire of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The DCT, specifically DrThunder7 has reported multiple buildings of the GER and its members to be eyesores.
2. These reports are targeted because of DrThunder7's public hatred of the GER.
3. DrThunder7 has also said that he reports buildings to make money when he needs more money.
4. The GER military base that was evicted by DrThunder7 for being an eyesore didn't fall under any of the categories to classify the build as an eyesore.
5. The reason that Dr.Thunder7 gave for the building being an eyesore is that it used "limited, basic materials" however in the DCT plot regulations guide, it classifies limited basic materials as dirt, cobblestone or other similar blocks, however the GER building used quartz which is not a limited basic material.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. An eyesore is a valid reason to evict a plot, and DrThunder7 did in fact give reasons as to why he considered the building to be an eyesore.
2. DrThunder7, while it is true that he doesn't like the GER, this is because he doesn't like parties at all, and has no specific bias against the GER.
3. Whether the build is an eyesore is subjective, however because it falls under one of the categories that the DCT has posted on what classifies a build as an eyesore, it was a completely valid eviction. This category being limited basic material.
4. While the Plaintiff fixed one of the issues causing the building to be an eyesore (the iron fence around the building), they didn't fix all of the issues which is what caused the plot to be evicted. These other issues include limited material as well as a non-moving flag.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Firstly, before mentioning any legal tests and evaluations, I would like to make it clear that the first prayer for relief can't happen. Even if the building inspector made a mistake in evicting a plot, it does not give that plot immunity from being evicted in the future. This is similar to if a person is falsely arrested, they are still able to be arrested in the future if they commit a crime.
2. Moving on to if the building is an eyesore, the DCT is able to have their own regulations on what is considered an eyesore so long as their classifications are available to the public. All of the public information on this can be found in the DCT's plot regulation page.
3. The first eviction report claims that there were clashing colors/materials which is a valid reason to evict a plot. The clashing colors were purple and pink blocks. As this court is not an expert at colors, an extensive google search concluded the pink and purple do not clash with each other, and in many cases they go well with each other for a feminine look.
4. The second eviction report claims that the building used limited basic materials. While this is also a valid reason to evict, we must look if the building used limited, basic materials. According to the DCT limited basic materials are blocks such as dirt, cobblestone and anything similar. A reasonable person would not put quartz in the same category as dirt and cobblestone.
5. Now that we have determined that both of the eviction reports were questionable at best, and the buildings shouldn't have caused an eviction report, we can look into the possible claim of bias from the building inspector. There is no better evidence than DrThunder7 themselves stating that they dislike the party system, and furthermore expressing public dislike of the GER and its members specifically.

IV. DECISION
1. This court cannot find DrThunder7 Guilty or not Guilty of misconduct or corruption because they are not being tried for these crimes, and the DLA would need to prosecute them.
2. This court also cannot force an investigation as that is something that the DCT, DLA, or congress must decide to do themselves if they wish to investigate DrThunder7, however this court can recommend an investigation into DrThunder7 for possible misconduct and corruption.
3. Since the plot is still owned by a member of the GER, money can't be awarded for plot, as no money was lost due to the eviction report.
4. Since both eviction reports are not backed up by the plot regulations, this court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and orders the DCT to pay the Plaintiff $500 in legal fees.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top