Lawsuit: Adjourned VerniciaS v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 39

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vernicia (Dragon Law representing)
Plaintiff

vs.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains as follows:

At 11:07 PM EST on March 2, 2024, the DoC Secretary posted private information about sales and purchases by different companies. This is illegal under Executive Order 23/24 - Rights of Businesses.


I. PARTIES
1. Vernicia
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont


II. FACTS
1. The Defendant leaked the Plaintiff’s private information.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Executive Order 23/24 - Rights of Businesses states:

“Right to Privacy
CPI Data - Personal identifiable information within raw Consumer Price Index (CPI) data shall henceforth be CLASSIFIED to non-relevant personnel, and may be used for official Department of Commerce purposes only. Defining "relevant personnel" shall remain at the discretion of the Commerce Secretary. "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) shall be defined as any information related to an identifiable person (ie. their names).”

The Defendant blatantly violated Executive Order 23/24, and thus their leak of private business information is illegal. The Executive Order states clearly that it is not permissible to share the private data of businesses when creating the CPI and is meant only for relevant personnel.


IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. $1,000,000 in Compensatory Damages due to private business actions being made public which opens the Plaintiff up to a disadvantage against its competitors
2. $5,000,000 in Punitive Damages due to the blatant disregard for the law
3. $1,000,000 in Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
4. $1,400,000 in Legal Fees (20% of the case value)



V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit A

Exhibit B

VI. WITNESSES
1. antilethal
2. Stoppers

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 11th day of March, 2024.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@Snowy_Heart is required to appear before the court in the case of the VerniciaS v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I apologize for the delay, but may I have an extra 24 hours to file my answer to complaint.
Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You have another 24 hours from this message. Please be prompt.

 

[zLost]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff states "VerniciaS" as a party. VerniciaS is not a registered business nor a player on the server or someone who has agreed to being represented.
2. Court policy, specifically the Motion's Guide (link), gives the following as a reason to file a motion to dismiss: "The plaintiff failed to name a necessary party in the complaint, or named the wrong party."
3. As "VerniciaS" is not a necessary nor an entity that can be a part of this case, the case should be dismissed.

DATED: This 21st day of March 2024​

 

[RelaxedGV]

Plaintiff has 24 hours to provide a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, I was just made aware of the fact that my client no longer uses the business VerniciaS and instead operates all business under her own name.

I would like to amend the Complaint to replace “VerniciaS” with “Vernicia” in both the Parties section and the Plaintiff section of the header.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I will allow the amendment and thus this case will continue. Because of that this Motion to Dismiss will be rejected however the Defendant may file a new one without filing a Motion to Reconsider.

The Defendant has an additional 48 hours to post an answer to complaint and Motion to Dismiss should they wish to provide that Motion.

 

[zLost]

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

Vernicia
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant disputes that they leaked the Plaintiff’s private information.

II. DEFENCES
1. Executive Order 23/24 states that the Commonwealth may not share personally identifiable information in the CPI, however it specifically states that they may not share personally identifiable information to non-relevant personnel.
2. Executive Order 23/24 also states that the Commerce Secretary decides the definition of relevant personnel.
3. As such, the DLA reached out to the Commerce Secretary, who when asked who were relevant personnel to the January CPI, quoted: "Everyone. The CPI is used to everyone to acquire knowledge based on price fluctuations. The DoC is working to where everyone can help with the CPI making it more accurate, and giving faster results. The DoC works together in completing this project with the input of other individuals." (Exhibit A)
4. As everyone is relevant personnel, the Commonwealth did NOT share classified information with non-relevant personnel, and thus did not violate the EO.

Spoiler: EXHIBIT A

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 22nd day of March 2024

 

[zLost]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Commonwealth would like to move for summary judgement after the opening statements have been presented.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Would the Plaintiff also wish for Summary Judgement?

 

[Admin23]

No, your Honor. Facts are in dispute. Let’s let this play out.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, as summary judgement is not agreed upon by the plaintiff, can we move onto opening statements?

 

[RelaxedGV]

Apologies for not moving this forward sooner due to irl commitments.

We will be moving onto Opening Statements and the Plaintiff has 72 hours to post theirs.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, this case before you is one of the citizen’s right to privacy.

Opposing counsel states that the government did not leak private information to non-relevant personnel as the government can deem any person ‘relevant personnel.’

Personnel is defined as:

“A body of persons employed in an organization or place of work.”

The entirety of the populace of Redmont is not employed by the DoC.

Additionally, the Executive Order requires the personnel be relevant. That means not even all individuals employed by the DoC are given access to this information.


The Government is entrusted with all of our personal and private data in order to produce the CPI. There is an Executive Order in place to prevent private information leaking in the production of said CPI. The Government decided to leak private information anyway, however is now claiming that they have the authority to let everyone see it.

I would like to note that opposing counsel is not claiming that they did not share private information. They are simply claiming that they are allowed to distribute that private information to everyone.

This argument defeats the purpose of the Executive Order.


DATED: This 29th day of March, in the year of our Lord, 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Defense is hereby found in Contempt of Court.

With that, due to me accidentally skipping the Discovery phase of this lawsuit, I will allow 72 hours for both sides to list witnesses or declare then have none. This was purely a fault on me and I apologize.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, the Defence has no witnesses

 

[Admin23]

We have a witness section in the Complaint. Besides those, the Plaintiff has none.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, I will issue summons momentarily.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@Lethal & @Stoppers are required to appear before the court in the case of Vernicia v. Commonwealth. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​

 

[Stoppers]

Present. Please note I may have to charge my secondly rate of $500/second for my presence.

 

[Lethal]

Unfortunately, I am present, your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide questions.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, the original case filing was edited on 22nd of march. I believe it is important for the court to know what was edited.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, the original case filing was edited on 22nd of march. I believe it is important for the court to know what was edited.

The editing was approved by the Court.

Your Honor, I was just made aware of the fact that my client no longer uses the business VerniciaS and instead operates all business under her own name.

I would like to amend the Complaint to replace “VerniciaS” with “Vernicia” in both the Parties section and the Plaintiff section of the header.

 

[Admin23]

Question for Lethal and Stoppers:

Did the Department of Commerce make private buy/sell information of individuals and businesses public when publishing the Consumer Price Index?

 

[Admin23]

You Honor, would it be possible to have Discovery after the witnesses answer these questions? We skipped over it, however Discovery will be important to this case.

 

[Lethal]

Did the Department of Commerce make private buy/sell information of individuals and businesses public when publishing the Consumer Price Index?

Before I resigned from the Department of Commerce as Head of Commerce (the person who does the CPI besides the Secretary), Secretary Technofied informed me that he would like to make changes to the Consumer Price Index and presented me with an example of his new CPI model. Before it was published, I alerted him of my concerns as it included sensitive data designated as classified in Executive Order 24/23 - Rights of Business I, but shortly after my resignation, the CPI was published, and Technofied included the entirety of the raw data into the public CPI which contained the buy/sell information of every transaction during the month despite my aforementioned warning to him about publishing sensitive data.

Every single transaction with every single item amount, location (x,y,z), buyer, seller, and time was included in the CPI that Secretary Technofied's DOC published.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You Honor, would it be possible to have Discovery after the witnesses answer these questions? We skipped over it, however Discovery will be important to this case.

No.

 

[RelaxedGV]

@Stoppers you have 24 hours to provide a response to the question below or you will be found in Contempt.

Question for Lethal and Stoppers:

Did the Department of Commerce make private buy/sell information of individuals and businesses public when publishing the Consumer Price Index?

 

[Admin23]

No.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, Discovery is a crucial aspect to the litigation process. To dismiss it is to not allow proper justice to be had. Both for the Plaintiff and Defendant.

Skipping over Discovery was a mistake, and mistakes happen. However to not remedy the mistake is cause for a mistrial. When there is a serious procedural error, it either must be remedied or a mistrial must be declared.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, may we respond to the motion to reconsider? To save time, I've attached the response here below, which you can ignore if our request is denied or consider if it is accepted

Spoiler: RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, it has already been much more than 7 days since the answer to complaint was filed. The Plaintiff has had plenty of time to obtain their evidence during this time, as such discovery is not needed. Along with this, we may be looking at 2-3 more days of witness questioning, which gives the Plaintiff even more time. I believe that this request is merely an attempt at stalling the case and to give the Plaintiff much more extra time to prepare their answer to complaint.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, Discovery is a crucial aspect to the litigation process. To dismiss it is to not allow proper justice to be had. Both for the Plaintiff and Defendant.

Skipping over Discovery was a mistake, and mistakes happen. However to not remedy the mistake is cause for a mistrial. When there is a serious procedural error, it either must be remedied or a mistrial must be declared.

Firstly the response is allowed given I would have granted it anyway if I had seen it before the Defense posted it.

Now for the Motion to Reconsider, I will still be rejecting this Motion. As the Defense stated in their response, you have had a week before initial summons were done and going beyond ample time beyond that in Opening Statements and even the 72 hours given for Witnesses. This was ample time alone to get your ducks in line should you need to.

While I understand the importance of Discovery, this is not only for new evidence, but as the Plaintiff you should have gotten the evidence needed before filing the suit. If anything is needed via the lawsuit a Motion to Compel could still be filed for the information.

 

[Stoppers]

Question for Lethal and Stoppers:

Did the Department of Commerce make private buy/sell information of individuals and businesses public when publishing the Consumer Price Index?

Your Honor, yes, the Department of Commerce did in fact make private buy/sell information of individuals and businesses public when publishing the Consumer Price Index.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide more questions or declare they have none otherwise we will be moving forward.

 

[Admin23]

We have no more questions, your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Very well, the Defense may now cross-examine the Witnesses. Please provide questions or declare you have none within 72 hours.

 

[zLost]

We have no questions, your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Very well, we will now be moving into Closing Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide theirs.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, as we bring this case to a close, it's essential to emphasize the gravity of the defendant's actions.

Two witnesses have confirmed that private information was indeed leaked by the government, violating the trust bestowed upon them to safeguard our personal data. Despite the existence of an Executive Order aimed at preventing such breaches, the government has chosen to disregard it, asserting its authority to share private information with anyone it deems fit. However, this interpretation not only undermines the very purpose of the Executive Order but also infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy cherished by every citizen. The defense's argument falls short in justifying this breach of trust and undermines the integrity of our legal system.

Therefore, I urge the court to uphold the sanctity of privacy rights and hold the government accountable for its actions.


Dated: This 11th day of April, 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, the Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that opposing counsel has failed to submit a closing statement before the deadline.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that opposing counsel has failed to submit a closing statement before the deadline.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

It has not been 72 hours, it has been roughly ~50 hours now.

 

[zLost]

OBJECTION
Fruit of the poisonous tree

Your Honor, Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the original case filing are allegedly classified. The Plaintiff should've requested a closed court to submit this evidence, instead of putting it for public view and possibly causing more harm if this evidence is found to indeed be classified (which is the subject matter of the case). As such, this evidence should not be considered.

 

[zLost]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

It has not been 72 hours, it has been roughly ~50 hours now.

I apologize your honor, I miscalculated the time, which was pointed out to me by someone in DMs. Because of this, I had thought I still had 24 more hours left to get out the opening statement. I would like to retract this objection and ask for a 24 hours extension if possible. I have the closing statement ready and will post it right away if the extension is granted. Thank you.

 

[Admin23]

OBJECTION
Fruit of the poisonous tree

Your Honor, Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the original case filing are allegedly classified. The Plaintiff should've requested a closed court to submit this evidence, instead of putting it for public view and possibly causing more harm if this evidence is found to indeed be classified (which is the subject matter of the case). As such, this evidence should not be considered.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor, the Government leaked this information that I attached as evidence.

The definition of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in the Objections Guide is:

“The evidence was obtained illegally, or the investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal.”

If I had illegally obtained these screenshots, this would be a valid objection. I have not illegally obtained these screenshots.

The mere existence of this objection would mean that the government has accepted that these screenshots must be private and should not have been leaked.

 

[RelaxedGV]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor, the Government leaked this information that I attached as evidence.

The definition of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in the Objections Guide is:

“The evidence was obtained illegally, or the investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal.”

If I had illegally obtained these screenshots, this would be a valid objection. I have not illegally obtained these screenshots.

The mere existence of this objection would mean that the government has accepted that these screenshots must be private and should not have been leaked.

Before I rule on this Objection, the evidence was allegedly leaked within the CPI correct?

 

[RelaxedGV]

I apologize your honor, I miscalculated the time, which was pointed out to me by someone in DMs. Because of this, I had thought I still had 24 more hours left to get out the opening statement. I would like to retract this objection and ask for a 24 hours extension if possible. I have the closing statement ready and will post it right away if the extension is granted. Thank you.

You may, you have 24 hours from this message.

 

[Admin23]

Before I rule on this Objection, the evidence was allegedly leaked within the CPI correct?