Lawsuit: Dismissed The_Donuticus vs. Town of Klondike [2022] FCR 99

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

Klondike
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES
1. The_Donuticus
2. Klondike

II. FACTS
1. On December 16th 2022 Tylxrfied publicly declared themselves Mayor of Klondike as the previous Mayor SnoWhitebeard had stepped down from the role.
2. Tylxrfied has "stepped up" to the role of Mayor as they were previously Deputy Mayor.
3. There is no legal process in the Constitution of Klondike for the appointment of a new Mayor, the Constitution only states: "The Deputy Mayor shall hold all powers of the mayor in the event of the mayors absence, for only the time that the Mayor is away.
4. Historically the DOS has acted as the body which administers for Towns on behalf of the Executive.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Due to there being no legal process by which the Deputy Mayor of Klondike can claim the role of Mayor, Tylxrfied cannot be Mayor.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Tylxrfied is removed as Mayor of Klondike.
2. The DOS, as the body which administers for Towns on behalf of the Executive, resolves the issue by appointing a new Mayor.

V. EVIDENCE
1. The Constitution of Klondike

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 16th day of December 2022

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
As there are no legal provisions or reason which would grant Tylxrfied the role of Mayor, I ask the court that they grant the Prayer for Relief to have them removed from the role immediately, before the role can be abused.

DATED: This 16th day of December 2022

 

[Banana]

I will grant the emergency injunction and I order that Tylxrfied have the role of "Mayor" removed for the duration of this case. As per the Constitution, however, they will retain all the powers of mayor.

 

[Banana]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The_Donuticus v. Town of Klondike [2022] FCR 99.

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.​

 

[Matthew100x]

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

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Klondike
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The plaintiff is factually incorrect about there not being a process for the appointment of a new mayor. “Should there be an intra-term vacancy within the Council, the Council may choose to either proceed with mayoral appointments (and subsequently, a special election if no nomination can be made) or trigger a special election for the seat. Mayoral appointments shall be confirmed with a simple majority vote.” If there is a mayoral or council vacancy, either a special election will occur or the mayor may make mayoral appointment for the position. If there is a mayoral appointment, then the council only needs a simple vote to confirm the mayor. (Constitution - The Constitution of Klondike)

2. The council is defined as being “comprised of seven members including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and five Councilors.”

3. Tylxr, being the Deputy Mayor and having mayoral powers as confirmed by this court, appointed himself as the mayoral appointment for Mayor of the Town of Klondike.

4. Tylxr, who is a member of the town council, voted for himself to become the mayor.

5. All other councilors were inactive at the time of the vote and did not contest the vote of Tylxr’s mayoral appointment; giving implied consent of the vote.

6. Tylxr was legally confirmed to be the Mayor of the Town of Klondike per protocol established by the Constitution of Klondike as the simple vote of 1 ayes/0 nays/5 abstains went unopposed by the council.

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 19th day of December, 2022.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

May the Plaintiff please have a chance to respond to this?

 

[Banana]

You may.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

1. The Defendant is factually incorrect when claiming the Plaintiff is factually incorrect that there is not a process for the appointment of a new mayor. The Defendant has chosen to raise an irrelevant section of the constitution to try and confuse the court, now forcing myself to go into a long winded explanation to show just how wrong they are.

For the purposes of this demonstration I have provided a copy of the relevant part of the constitution in a spoiler below, I have coloured and put markers throughout this in order to allow for easier reference.

Spoiler: The Constitution of Klondike

ARTICLE I – THE EXECUTIVE
(i) The executive of Klondike is comprised of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and any other positions that are established through the legislative process.

The Mayor has the power to veto any bill passed by the Town Council. Said bill will then be immediately moved to the Rejected/Vetoed Bills section on the forums.

(ii) The Mayor has the individual power to appoint and remove any of the five seats in the legislature of the Town Council.

The removal process of a Councilor must involve a unanimous Town Council vote of no confidence, excluding the Councilor in question.

The Deputy Mayor shall hold all powers of the mayor in the event of the mayors absence, for only the time that the Mayor is away.

ARTICLE II – THE LEGISLATIVE
(iii) The Legislature of Klondike consists of a unicameral Town Council comprised of seven members including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and five Councilors.

The Klondike Town Council has the power to author, propose, and pass laws of any relations relating to the governance of Klondike through a majority of its members with the only stipulations that such legislation may not conflict with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont and any bill which intends to modify this Constitution must abide by the process outlined in Article IV.

(iv) Each Councilor in the Klondike Town Council serve in terms that expire 60 days following the conclusion of the previous general Council election. (v) This does not include the Executive branch of the Klondike Town Council.

6 days prior to the conclusion of Councilors' 60-day terms, the next general election shall begin for all Councilors, consisting of a 2-day declarations period, 2-day campaign period, and 2-day voting period. The 5 players who receive the most votes among the candidates for any (vi) Council seat during any given general election shall enter office upon the start of the next term.

(vii) Should there be an intra-term vacancy within the Council, the Council may choose to either proceed with mayoral appointments (and subsequently, a special election if no nomination can be made) or trigger a special election for the seat. (viii) Mayoral appointments shall be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Special elections shall consist of a 2-day declarations period, 2-day campaign period, and 2-day voting period. The player who receives the most votes for the vacant Council seat during any given special election shall enter office immediately. (ix) Any Councilor appointed or elected to an office following a vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the respective Council term.

(x) Any candidate for a Councilor position must have at least 72 hours active total playtime and 12 or more hours of playtime in the last 30 days prior to declaring their intent to contest a seat in a general or special election.

a. The Defendant claims: "If there is a mayoral or council vacancy, either a special election will occur or the mayor may make mayoral appointment for the position." - this is a misrepresentation of the facts and an attempt to mislead the court. The exact wording is "Should there be an intra-term vacancy within the Council, the Council may choose to either proceed with mayoral appointments...or trigger a special election"

Now the Defendant has falsely claimed that "If there is a mayoral or council vacancy..." as stated before to mislead the court, and I hope the court takes this into consideration and would even ask the court warn the Defendant to not engage in such chicanery. The key phrase to look at in the Constitution here is "intra-term vacancy", this is referring to the fact that as per the constitution outlined in (iv) the role of 'Councilor' serves a 60 day term - the Mayor does not serve for a set term. Therefore as the Mayor does not serve for a set term then the role cannot have an intra-term vacancy. Furthermore this section of the Constitution, specifically from (iv) onwards is making reference to, and dealing with specifically, the role of 'Councilor': (iv) outlines their term limits and election process (vii) outlines the process for replacement, and (x) outlines the requirements to run. It is plain and simple, this section is not about the Mayor - it is only about the 5 Councilor seats, this is further highlighted with (v) which specifically states "This does not include the Executive branch of the Klondike Town Council", as if it could not be more clear. Everything in this section of the Constitution following this is an extension of this section.

b. The Defendant claims: "If there is a mayoral appointment, then the council only needs a simple vote to confirm the mayor." this is once again continuing the misrepresentation that this section refers to the role of Mayor. Just because the Mayor is a member of the legislative does not mean that appointment to the legislative applies to the Mayor, see the reasons above once again as to why this process only applies to the role of 'Councilor'.

c. The Constitution specifically outlines the Mayor as a member of the Executive (i) and Legislative (iii), the Constitution also gives the Mayor power over the Councilor role in the way of appointment and removal. At no point does it give anyone the power to appoint a Mayor, or even Deputy Mayor for that matter. This is missing from the Constitution, plain and simple. The section in the Legislative outlining the replacement process for Councilors is specifically highlighted as not including the Executive Branch of the Town Council, see (v).

d. As further evidence to show that the Mayor is not being referred to in this section I would ask to Court to consider the language used throughout, specifically highlighting the fact that the Constitution uses the terms Councilor and Council Seat interchangeably, and furthermore do not refer to the Mayor as having a Council Seat. This is shown most prominently in (ii) where it states "The Mayor has the individual power to appoint and remove any of the five seats in the legislature of the Town Council.", it is clear in this that the Town Council only has 5 seats, it has 7 members but only 5 seats. This is rather important as the section referring to the process of replacing a Councilor repeatedly uses the term 'council seat' but never 'member', however just before this section it very clearly uses the term 'member' when referring to the whole council including the Mayor. It is extremely clear that the wording of this section does not apply to the replacement of a Mayor or Deputy mayor as the Defendant claims.

2. The Defendant states: "The council is defined as being “comprised of seven members including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and five Councilors.”" this is correct. The Council has seven members. Keyword: Members not Seats.

3. The Defendant states: "Tylxr...appointed himself as the mayoral appointment for Mayor of the Town of Klondike." This is an extremely erroneous statement and I will be filling a objection for Perjury regarding this. The Defendant has claimed that Tylxr appointed themselves Mayor using their Mayoral powers - but they provide no evidence that this appointment was made. In reality in their announcement that they had become Mayor Tylxr wrote that they would 'step back up'. If this appointment was made to the Town Council then the Defendant should provide evidence that this was the case or this statement should be stricken from the record.

4. The Defendant states: "Tylxr, who is a member of the town council, voted for himself to become the mayor." once again providing no evidence this happened. If it happened they should provide evidence of such or it should be stricken from the record.

5. The Defendant states: "All other councilors were inactive at the time of the vote and did not contest the vote of Tylxr’s mayoral appointment; giving implied consent of the vote." this means that a vote did take place according to the Defendant, so the Defendant should provide evidence of this. Furthermore how long did the vote go on for? By what metric are they being counted as abstaining? This is a highly dubious sequence of events that must be challenged.

6. The Defendant states: "Tylxr was legally confirmed to be the Mayor of the Town of Klondike per protocol established by the Constitution of Klondike as the simple vote of 1 ayes/0 nays/5 abstains went unopposed by the council." there is no legal process outlined for the Town Council in the Constitution to replace the Mayor, so Tylxr was not legally confirmed by any sense of the word. It was an illegal ascension to the role of Mayor, plain and simple.

---

And with that I finalize my response. It is clear to me that the Defendant is trying to mislead the Court and I hope, after careful review of my response, the Court will take appropriate action. I will be filling some addition Motions follow on from this Response, I ask for just an hour to do this before any response.

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 21st day of December, 2022.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

OBJECTION: PERJURY

In their Motion to Dismiss the Defence writes:

Spoiler: Text

3. Tylxr, being the Deputy Mayor and having mayoral powers as confirmed by this court, appointed himself as the mayoral appointment for Mayor of the Town of Klondike.

4. Tylxr, who is a member of the town council, voted for himself to become the mayor.

5. All other councilors were inactive at the time of the vote and did not contest the vote of Tylxr’s mayoral appointment; giving implied consent of the vote.

6. Tylxr was legally confirmed to be the Mayor of the Town of Klondike per protocol established by the Constitution of Klondike as the simple vote of 1 ayes/0 nays/5 abstains went unopposed by the council.

I believe this sequence of event to be factually incorrect. I believe that this did not in fact happen, there was no vote and that Tylxr just stepped back up to the role as they had previously stated. If the Defence cannot provide evidence that this happened then this is an unprivilaged statement and an outright lie to the court.

DATED: This 21st day of December, 2022.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

MOTION TO AMEND FILING

Following on from closer inspection, as explained above, there is no process by which a Deputy Mayor can be appointed in the Consitution of Klondike. Tylxrfied became Deputy Mayor at the appointment of SnoWhitebeard on the 18th of Nov 2022, this is not possible under the Constitution and I do not believe any formal process was undertaken to allow this to happen. It was just a unilateral move by the then Mayor.

As such I would like to amend the Pray for Relief for this lawsuit to also include the following:

3. Tylxrfied is removed as Deputy Mayor of Klondike.

DATED: This 21st day of December, 2022.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

As there are no legal provisions or reason which would grant Tylxrfied the role of Deputy Mayor, I ask the court that they grant the Prayer for Relief to have them removed from the role immediately. They have shown that they will abuse the role for their own personal gain in appointing themselves Mayor without consulting the rest of the Council and have now come before the Court making very unprivileged statements to try and mislead.

DATED: This 21st day of December, 2022.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Due to the fact that Tylxrfied is now not Mayor (And hopefully soon not to be Deputy Mayor), they cannot appoint any individuals to the role of Deputy Mayor as doing so would invalidate their own position. Thus I would ask the court to roll back the appointment of ItsMeVoid and Teun to the role of Deputy Mayor for the following reasons:

1) There can only be one Deputy Mayor as per the Constitution of Klondike ("The Legislature of Klondike consists of a unicameral Town Council comprised of seven members including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and five Councilors.")
2) if the above Injunction is passed then Tylxrfied has no authority to make any appointments.
3) There is no process in the Town Constitution to allow for the appointment of a Deputy Mayor.

DATED: This 21st day of December, 2022.

 

[Banana]

I would like to apologize in advance to both parties, due to my family having COVID I may be slightly delayed on my response times, although I will try my best to answer in a timely manner.

 

[Banana]

With regard to the Motion to Dismiss, the motion is denied, as it is comprised of defenses and lacking any allegations of frivolity in the filing or reasons this case should not be heard.

I will now respond to the objections for Perjury and two Emergency Injunctions.

1. The first objection due to perjury is overruled as it is the burden of the accusing party to provide evidence. If the Plaintiff has evidence that the Defense provided knowingly and factually false information to the Court, they may present it.
2. The first new Emergency Injunction is denied, for the following reason: The Constitution specifically mentions a Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the Executive branch. Seeing as the Mayor is the head of the Executive branch, it is a logical conclusion that, provided no established legislation is violated, they may use their best judgment to manage their branch, including the appointment of a Deputy Mayor. So, given that no legislation was violated by the appointment, it is legal.
3. The second new Emergency Injunction is granted, and ItsMeVoid and Teun will be removed from the position of Deputy Mayor. The Constitution explicitly states that the Executive branch is composed of "the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and any other positions..." with the use of the singular implying that there can only be one Mayor and one Deputy Mayor.

The updated filing is noted, however it will be the burden of the Plaintiff to prove that the appointment of Tylxrfied to Deputy Mayor was illegal in order for the new section of the Prayer for Relief to be granted.

With all of this addressed, we will move onto opening statements. The Plaintiff may now present their opening statements.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

These are not defenses, we are pointing out that the justification behind the case is unfounded. Our argument tested the validity of the plaintiff's complaint and showed it to not be founded. Donut made the following argument in II. Facts:

3. There is no legal process in the Constitution of Klondike for the appointment of a new Mayor, the Constitution only states: "The Deputy Mayor shall hold all powers of the mayor in the event of the mayors absence, for only the time that the Mayor is away.

He then used that fact as justification for his singular legal point in his case within the III. Claims for Relief:

1. Due to there being no legal process by which the Deputy Mayor of Klondike can claim the role of Mayor, Tylxrfied cannot be Mayor.

The defendant pointed out that there was a legal process outlined within the Constitution of the Town of Klondike:

“Should there be an intra-term vacancy within the Council, the Council may choose to either proceed with mayoral appointments (and subsequently, a special election if no nomination can be made) or trigger a special election for the seat. Mayoral appointments shall be confirmed with a simple majority vote.”

We also clearly pointed out that the various members of the Town Council is defined:

2. The council is defined as being “comprised of seven members including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and five Councilors.”

Which is further backed up by the plaintiff's own color coding of the Town of Klondike's constitution (Bolding added by myself for emphasis):

(iii) The Legislature of Klondike consists of a unicameral Town Council comprised of seven members including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and five Councilors.

(vii) Should there be an intra-term vacancy within the Council, the Council may choose to either proceed with mayoral appointments

If the above is to be held as true, then this case must be dismissed for lack of a claim for relief. There is no viable and valid justification for the continuation of this case. If we must continue this case, then I need to know in writing what in fact is being tried here so I can make a valid defense in our opening statements. As far as I am aware, the defense has pointed out the factual error of the plaintiff's case and since that fact is the justification for the only claim for relief of this case. Therefore the defendant is asking for this Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Dismiss be granted so it can be released from continuing legal action on this case.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

OBJECTION

As explained in our original response there exists a distinction between members of the town council and seats on the town council. The legal process which allows for mayoral appointments is for seats. I ask the court to stop this chicanery on the part of the Defendant.

 

[Banana]

The objection is overruled, as there is no stated grounds for it, and it just contains more legal arguments as opposed to procedural objections.

The Motion to Reconsider is rejected, and the case will not be dismissed. Upon reviewing the case, I cannot find anything that suggests that this case cannot or should not be heard. The factual error the Defense points to appears to be a difference in interpretation of the law, which is something the court may decide on.

The Plaintiff may now present their opening statements.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

The Plaintiff would request a 48 hour extension as we are waiting on a Freedom of Information request made on the 21st.

 

[Banana]

The extension is granted.

 

[Matthew100x]

More than 96 hours have exceeded since the plaintiff was instructed to post their opening statements.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Apologies your honor, life has been extremely busy and the DLA has still not granted my freedom of information request for information vital to this case, having made the request 9 days ago. This Freedom of Information request is vital to answer the unprivileged claims of the defence that a vote occurred to assert Tylxr as Mayor - a statement I am sure is false and shows the defence acting in bad faith.

The court has not recognized that this statement is unprivileged and thus the burden of proof has fallen on me the Plaintiff to prove it did not happen, something only the town staff has access to. This is an extremely unfair burden to place on myself in this case as the court has accepted an unprivileged statement without proof, a statement which would destroy my entire case if true.

Spoiler: Evidence of Request

I would request a Writ of Mandamus from the court to order the DLA to answer the freedom of information request immediately so that I may receive a fair trial and make my opening statement with this vital information to counter the unprivileged statements of the Defence.

 

[Matthew100x]

If the plaintiff was not ready to create a case against the defendant, why did they immediately make a lawsuit instead of utilizing their full statute of limitations to gather information for their case? If the plaintiff needs additional information, perhaps they can make a discovery request during witnesses/testimonials to the defendant. This court should reject the argument for extra time for opening statements to await the FOI request on the grounds that the plaintiff should have taken due diligence in gathering this information before dragging the parties to court. Not to say that the contents of the FOI are unimportant, it clearly contains some value for the plaintiff. However, for the sake of fairness, the defendant requests that this trial continues since the plaintiff did not introduce this evidence with their complaint nor had it ready for their opening statements since the plaintiff launched this case 1 day after Tylxr became mayor.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

OBJECTION

Firstly breach of procedure.

Secondly as explained this Freedom of Information request is in response to unprivileged statements made by the Defence that must be disproven for a fair trial to be undertaken, chiefly the claim that a vote happen to assert Tylxr as Mayor. The Defence is purposefully misrepresenting events. So to accuse the Plaintiff of not being prepared is utterly unfair as I cannot be expected to predict every lie the Defence will tell in court. Once again I ask the Court to warn the Defendant for this kind of chicanery.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff has asserted, falsely, that the defendant is "purposefully misrepresenting events" and that we are lying in court. This is a false admission made to this court. We, both the defendant and the plaintiff, are sworn to the truth and our posts are the truth as we see it. It is up to the you, Honorable Judge BananaNova to decide based on the merits of the case and the facts present as to which truth is the legal truth. However, we cannot allow the conduct of the plaintiff to stand and thus argue that he perjured himself.

Originally, the plaintiff made an objection of perjury against the defendant's motion to dismiss:

believe this sequence of event to be factually incorrect. I believe that this did not in fact happen, there was no vote and that Tylxr just stepped back up to the role as they had previously stated. If the Defence cannot provide evidence that this happened then this is an unprivilaged statement and an outright lie to the court.

Stating that an interpretation of the facts is a lie and boldly defamed the defendant and their attorney with a claim that they are lying. They do so without evidence and is overruled by this court:

The first objection due to perjury is overruled as it is the burden of the accusing party to provide evidence. If the Plaintiff has evidence that the Defense provided knowingly and factually false information to the Court, they may present it.

In spite of this, the plaintiff continues to accuse us of elements of perjury (Bolding added for emphasis):

The Defence is purposefully misrepresenting events. So to accuse the Plaintiff of not being prepared is utterly unfair as I cannot be expected to predict every lie the Defence will tell in court.

Perjury, as an objection, is defined as:

Perjury

When a witness has perjured themselves on the stand by lying or strongly misrepresenting facts on the stand (proof of perjury should be made with the objection).

There are no general exceptions.

Through this, we can see that the previous objection made by the plaintiff is a covert attempt to claim perjury against the defendant. Doing so without evidence and by misrepresenting the facts that are presented by the defendant as well as lying about the conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff's objection is not founded in a point of law and should be dismissed outright.

However, despite the plaintiff having already been told that they must present evidence of perjury to accuse someone of perjury, the plaintiff continues to assert the elements of perjury against the defendant, without any evidence to back it up. Thus we believe that they are strongly misrepresenting the facts on the stand and should be reprimanded for their objection and lack of curtesy and respect towards the defendant and their counsel. Thus we conclude our argument.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

*sigh*

Your honor the Defendant claims I committed perjury for stating they have lied in court, so it appears accusing someone of perjury is now in itself perjury according to the Defence - a truly dazzling legal mind. Perjury is stating something that is knowingly incorrect, I think its pretty clear I truly believe that the Defendant is lying - I do not believe they are being truthful and am taking steps to prove this.

This is chicanery. Plain and simple and the Defence is making a mockery of this court. I ask the court to please order the Writ of Mandamus so that I can prove the unprivileged statements made by the Defendant are in fact untruthful and we can put this chicanery to bed and allow a fair trial to proceed.

 

[Banana]

As to the objections,

• Plaintiff's objection on grounds of breach of procedure is sustained, the Defense's comments are struck from the record and I am hereby warning the Defense not to speak out of turn.
• Plaintiff's second objection is purely argument, and has no grounds, thus I will overrule it.
• Defense's objection on grounds of perjury is overruled, as there is no evidence of the Plaintiff deliberately making an untrue statement in court.

This will also be the warning to the Plaintiff to keep it professional. This is not the place for squabbling and petty insults, and you should have enough experience to know that.

 

[Banana]

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

It is hereby ordered, that the Department of Legal Affairs provide, within the legal duties of the department, the information requested by the Plaintiff. A response must be made to the Plaintiff's request within 24 hours.
​

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

I can confirm to the court the DLA has complied with the order and as such with the requested information I will be filling opening statements shortly, however it is new years!

 

[Banana]

This is a notice to the Plaintiff that you have 24 hours to file opening statements.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

I'm dropping the suit as I'm leaving the server

 

[Banana]

This lawsuit is hereby dismissed at the request of the Plaintiff.