Lawsuit: In Session totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40

ilovemyself_64818

ilovemyself_64818

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
.LinedShelf27892
.LinedShelf27892
attorney
Joined
Aug 6, 2024
Messages
33
Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


totemundying(Represented by titan law)
Plaintiff

v.
The Town of Aventura
Defendant


COMPLAINT


On September 3, 2024, the Plaintiff participated in a plot auction, placing a bid as is their right. After publicly revealing in-game chat their observation that their bid contributed to the auction price reaching $20,000, the Plaintiff was banned without any legal justification or due process to contest the action. The Mayor cited the Plaintiff’s in-game chats regarding the auction price as the basis for the ban. This ban severely impacted the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, especially as real estate auctions are central to their business. The Defendant's actions appear arbitrary and lacking lawful authority.


I. PARTIES


  1. Totemundying (Plaintiff)
  2. KattoTheGatto, the Mayor of Aventura, in their official capacity
  3. The Town of Aventura

II. FACTS


1. On September 3 , 2024, the Plaintiff Participated in an auction by placing a bid for a price as is his right


2. As soon as the Plaintiff publicly disclosed in game chat that he participated in a c plot auction and the plaintiff also disclosed in game his observation that because of his bidding the ultimate price in auction increased to $20000


3. The Plaintiff was not provided with any legal justification or due process to contest the ban Instead the mayor just attached the Plaintiffs in game chats in which the plaintiff disclosed his observation regarding the ultimate price of the plot after auction


4. The ban significantly harmed the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, as real estate auctions are a primary source of business for the Plaintiff.


5. The actions commited by the Defendant held no lawful authority


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


1.The defendant did not have any legal standing under any act of congress or Article of constitution to disbar the plaintiff from participating in real estate auctions


2. The Defendant’s arbitrary decision-making caused reputational and financial harm to the Plaintiff.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:


1. A court order lifting the ban on the Plaintiff's participation in real estate auctions in Aventura,


2. $10000 in Punitive damages For lost business opportunities and damages to the Plaintiff’s reputation.

3. $5000 in legal fees
P-1 Plaintiff's observation in game chat
aaa.png

P-2- Plaintiff suspension notice
Screenshot_2024-09-02_at_12.14.28_PM.png
 
Last edited:
pgyfUC4.png



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

@Mask3D_WOLF (AG) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 38 Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
pgyfUC4.png



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

@Mask3D_WOLF (AG) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 38 Failure to appear within 72 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.​
Click to expand...

Your Honor, I do not believe we have jurisdiction to defend towns in court.
 
Towns fall under the executive branch. Please provide standing in law that you can’t or don’t.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Towns fall under the executive branch. Please provide standing in law that you can’t or don’t.
Click to expand...
“(a) Defending the national legal interest.” is the responsibility of the DOJ. Towns are not the nation of Redmont, have decisions that are autonomous from Redmont (such as hosting separate auctions), and do not fall under the national legal interest. This is like saying that a nation has the responsibility to defend a province in court.

Towns are overseen by the Commonwealth. They are not run by the Commonwealth. They do not express the views of the Commonwealth.
 
pgyfUC4.png




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

@Alexander P. Love (Legal Team for Town) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 38 Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

totemundying
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Aventura
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that "on September 3 , 2024, the Plaintiff participated in an auction by placing a bid for a price" but DISPUTES that it "is his right".
2. The defense posits that fact two makes no intelligible sense.
3. The defense DISPUTES that "The Plaintiff was not provided with any legal justification or due process to contest the ban..." as the plaintiff was provided both a reason (supported by D-02 and P-01) and a way to make amends/contest the ban (supported by P-02).
4. The defense DISPUTES that "The ban significantly harmed the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, as real estate auctions are a primary source of business for the Plaintiff" as the plaintiff has offered no evidence of this and has even stated that he "only bids on [plots] to jack up the price", not to conduct business.
5. The defense DISPUTES that "The actions committed by the Defendant held no lawful authority" and will be outlined below.

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense, per the Aventura auction guidelines (D-01), which serves as a legally binding contract, reserves the right to restrict people from participating in auctions. This is a contractual provision and therefore is applicable to the plaintiff. He has agreed to that term by initially bidding on an auction in the past.
2. The Town of Aventura has no legal obligation to let anyone participate in its auctions, as this is not a right or privilege entitled by law.
3. Even if a Constitutional right could be extrapolated to protect a right of the plaintiff to participate in an auction, the Constitution provides that reasonable limits may be made that are justified. Expressing malicious intent to troll auctions and bid solely to raise the price for other bidders provides justified and reasonable grounds to impose a limit on his rights, if he had any in this case, which the defense contends he does not.

III. EVIDENCE

1726461382903.png
1726461400945.png


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 15th day of September, 2024.

 

Attachments

  • 1726461405008.png
    1726461405008.png
    35.7 KB · Views: 30
We will now enter a 3-day discovery period. Once it concludes, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement, followed by 72 hours for the defense to file theirs.
 
ilovemyself_64818 said:
The ban significantly harmed the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, as real estate auctions are a primary source of business for the Plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Objection


Perjury

As shown by the plaintiff’s own words in D-02, the statement that it harmed business operations is necessarily false.



Motion


Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under lack of claim and lack of personal standing. The plaintiff did not suffer damages as they were simply trolling, as admitted by them. With no damages, there is no standing and this case can be dismissed sua sponte. Furthermore, the plaintiff made no actual legal claim, simply alluding to some undefined right. The claim must be grounded in actual law, otherwise this case must be dismissed under rule 5.5.

 
ilovemyself_64818 said:
Your Honour,
Plaintiff wishes to drop this case
Click to expand...
The defense requests that the motion be reviewed first in the event this case would be dismissed with prejudice.
 
The plaintiff does NOT wish to drop the case your honor, there was some miscommunication.
 
essx said:
The plaintiff does NOT wish to drop the case your honor, there was some miscommunication.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the motion was already made and it should be resolved accordingly. The plaintiff is wasting the Court’s time.
 
Your honor, I should not be punished for my lawyers misunderstanding as his highness AlexanderLove is suggesting
 
The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
 
Your honor, do you mean defendant? If not, I've already responded.
 
No I mean plaintiff. You need to respond to the motion to dismiss made by Mr love
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,
I request a 24 hour extension, My internet is down at the moment and as per my network provider it will be down for the next day
 
Granted
 
Your Honour I wish to apologise on behalf of Titan Law for the delay in the response. We have recently let go of the lawyer manging this case. While I assign someone I wish to request a 48h extension. Apologies for the in proceeding.
 
Your Honor, I would also like to ask that the Defendant has a new lawyer assigned as AlexanderLove has quit Redmont and won't be pursuing this case
 
24hr extension granted l.
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Perjury

As shown by the plaintiff’s own words in D-02, the statement that it harmed business operations is necessarily false.



Motion


Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under lack of claim and lack of personal standing. The plaintiff did not suffer damages as they were simply trolling, as admitted by them. With no damages, there is no standing and this case can be dismissed sua sponte. Furthermore, the plaintiff made no actual legal claim, simply alluding to some undefined right. The claim must be grounded in actual law, otherwise this case must be dismissed under rule 5.5.

Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

The Defendant Failed to format the motion to dismiss as required by the courts.

Response To Motion To Dismiss

Your Honor, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied as the Plaintiff has adequately established both standing and a valid legal claim. Despite the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff suffered no damages, the injury in fact requirement for standing can include non-monetary harms such as reputational damage, emotional distress, or interference with rights, all of which are alleged here.
 
Updated to DCR 40 due to a name duplication

Magistrate pending appointment
 
Can we please have someone assigned so as to not violate my clients write to a speedy trial.
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Perjury

As shown by the plaintiff’s own words in D-02, the statement that it harmed business operations is necessarily false.

Click to expand...
Overruled. Even if this was necessarily false, no intent was shown.

Alexander P. Love said:

Motion


Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under lack of claim and lack of personal standing. The plaintiff did not suffer damages as they were simply trolling, as admitted by them. With no damages, there is no standing and this case can be dismissed sua sponte. Furthermore, the plaintiff made no actual legal claim, simply alluding to some undefined right. The claim must be grounded in actual law, otherwise this case must be dismissed under rule 5.5.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The right the Plaintiff mentions can be incurred from Part IV, §33, Clause XIII of the Constitution, specifically the right "to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination". Furthermore, verdict of the case Lawsuit: Adjourned - smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103 states "Every department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations. For the Department of Construction and Transport, this includes the responsibility to conduct auctions fairly and in strict accordance with its guidelines." While DCT is not the executing authority in this case, but the Town of Aventura, the Town is still a part of the executive branch, and must adhere to these points. The Plaintiff convinces me that, if only that, the primary damage here is declining to the Plaintiff their right to post a bid under same conditions as anyone else. The application of that right does not hang on the intent of bidding - whatever the supposed motive may be, if the bidder has sufficient funds, they should be able to bid.

dodrio3 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

The Defendant Failed to format the motion to dismiss as required by the courts.
Click to expand...
Overruled.

I am opening Discovery which will last 72 hours. As this case has been dragging on, I would like to see both sides respecting imposed deadlines.
 
I have been appointed as Aventuras Chief Counsel a few days ago so I will from now on be representing Aventura in this case
 
Please provide proof of your appointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top