Lawsuit: Dismissed TimeDefender v. The Department of Construction and Transport [2021] DCR 51

[dygyee]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


TimeDefender (Represented by The Lovely Law firm)
Plaintiff

v.

DCT
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The plaintiff, TimeDefender, owns plot C-012. He is currently trying to build a skyscraper for his company. The plaintiff, who had planned out the build in advance, realized that there was a tree right outside the border of his plot. This tree not only prevented the plaintiff from putting his logo on the side of the building, but it causes the outside of the building to look bad. The DCT refuses to remove the tree, causing the plaintiff to believe that the tree makes his building look like an eyesore. The tree lowers the value of the property because no potential buyer wants a tree in front of a potential entrance to their building. It also infringes on the plaintiffs right to free speech because part of the plaintiffs plan was to put a billboard in the location that the tree is blocking. Lastly This isn't fair because not every property owner has to deal with this problem. Therefore it's a violation of amendment 13 because the plaintiff isn't equally protected under the law.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. TimeDefender
2. DCT

II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff bought plot C-012
2. The plaintiff began to build his pre-planned building.
3. The plaintiff saw that his tree interfered with the visual appearance of his building.
4. The DCT was contacted, and they removed a few leaves but kept the tree.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. This tree causes the plaintiffs building to look like an eyesore. (Violation of law 6.6)
2. The tree lowers the value of the property. Which violates the 13th amendment.
3. The tree infringes on the plaintiffs freedom of speech by blocking a spot for his billboard.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Writ of Mandamus requiring the DCT to remove the tree.
2. $1000 in Legal fees.

Exhibit 1: The tree just outside the border of the plaintiffs plot, C-012.

Exhibit 2: Proof of representation.

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 14th day of September 2021

 

[bubbarc]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Timedefender (lovely law firm representing) v. the Department of Construction and Transportation. Failure to appear within 72 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.​

 

[lawanoesepr]

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

Timedefender
Plaintiff

v.

DCT
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff alleges that his "freedom of speech" was infringed. it wasn't because Redmont does not have a freedom of speech right.
2.The 13th amendment 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." It did not infringe the 13th amendment as the government did not discriminate, Remove equal protection, or Discriminate in law.

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

 

[bubbarc]

Does the plaintiff have any rebuttal?

 

[dygyee]

Response to the motion to dismiss:

1: While Redmont doesn't have a specific Freedom of speech right, Amendment X is Freedom of Press and the Media. Because the tree in question blocks the spot that the plaintiff planned to put a billboard on, the tree is a violation of the 10th amendment. It also violates Redmont's 6th amendment as the 6th amendment assures freedom of political communication. The prevention of a political billboard is therefore also a violation of the 6th amendment.

2: The thirteenth amendment states that every citizen has equal benefit of the law, and although it continues to say in particular unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status. It doesn't mean that the rest of the amendment is nullified just because the plaintiff's situation doesn't fit the last sentence of the amendment.

The Plaintiff’s motion is a rebuttal and does not serve to suggest any inaccuracies or frivolities in the case.

 

[bubbarc]

Verdict

This case is hereby dismissed on the following grounds:

1. The plaintiff alleges that they weren't equally protected by the law, the courts disagree with this notion as it wasn't a unique declination, the Department of Construction and Transportation has denied other, similar, requests in the past

2. The court also feels that because the plaintiff is not barred in any way from getting a billboard the claims that the Department of Construction and Transportation violating several rights by refusing to move a tree which was there before the plot was bought the claims that the plaintiff's rights of press and political communication were not violated

I would like to thank both parties for their time.