Lawsuit: Adjourned zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 48

[zLost]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

An auction for c610 was created, and as I was interested in the plot, I bid on it and engaged in a bidding war with Bombaz2005 until I bid $13k, following which Bombaz2005 bid $13.5k (Exhibit A). I realized that Bombaz2005 did not have this money in their balance, and that their bid was invalid, as such I stopped bidding. To my surprise, after the auction, even though I notified the DCT that Bombaz2005's bid was invalid according to the post guidelines shown at the top of the forums (Exhibit B), Bombaz2005 had won according to the DCT who claimed that these guidelines were from DOC back when they owned DC bids, and that DCT owns #real-estate meaning that these guidelines don't apply (Exhibit C).


I. PARTIES
1. zLost (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. zLost bid $13k on the auction for c610 in #real-estate.
2. Bombaz2005 following zLost's bid, bid $13.5k.
3. This bid was invalid as according to the post guidelines, the person bidding has to have the money in their balance in order for the bid to be valid.
4. The DCT denied zLost's claim of the bid being invalid, by saying that the guidelines were from when the DOC was in charge, and does not apply as the DCT owns #real-estate.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By bidding on the auction, zLost entered into a contract with the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. This has been precedented many times before, some cases where this has been precedented are:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Creepy505 V. d3froggy [2023] DCR 15

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Creepy505 Plaintiff v. d3froggy Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On 6/26 the defendant created a realestate auction on the discord for the plot c222 which went on for some time...

www.democracycraft.net

Lawsuit: Adjourned - FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION FlyingBlocks (Represented by LilDigiVert) Plaintiff v. dodrio3 Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: In pursuant with Rules and Laws 10.1, defining fraud as “an intentional or reckless...

www.democracycraft.net

3. Fraud, according to the White Collar Crackdown Act, is defined as:
an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.
3. The Commonwealth committed fraud, by not removing the outdated guidelines, they made the Plaintiff think that they had won.
4. The Plaintiff would've bid higher if they had known that Bombaz2005's bid was valid, as such they suffered a huge loss by losing their chance to win the plot c610.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5,000 in Punitive Damages.
2. c610 to be put up for auction again OR be given to the next highest bid (whichever the court finds most fit).

Spoiler: EXHIBIT A

Spoiler: EXHIBIT B

Spoiler: EXHIBIT C

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 17th day of November 2023

 

[zLost]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUCTION

The Plaintiff ask that c610 is removed from Bombaz2005 until this case ends, to prevent it from being sold off to someone else or to have changes to the build that will be hard to repair or irreparable.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Has the plot already been transferred to Bombaz2005?

 

[Taelor]

Just a friendly reminder from the court clerk, please follow the template for posts, including naming the post. The clerk will rename the post with the case number when it gets assigned. Thank you!

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I have received information that it has indeed been transferred to Bombaz2005. Therefore, I will partially grant the emergency injunction. @Bombaz2005 is hereby ordered to not transfer or make major changes to c610 as per the emergency injunction under penalty of contempt of court. I will not, however, order that the plot be removed from Bombaz2005. I will issue summons shortly.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Attorney General is required to appear before the District Court in the case of zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. 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.​

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor
I have just taken over this case and i am asking the court for a 24 hour Extension.

 

[SumoMC]

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

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The commonwealth request that this case be dismissed on multiple reasons, firstly the case law that has been quoted by the defendant as precedent would not apply here in the slightest. The two cases that were quoted here where about nonpayment of for the plots. The person in question here has paid for the plot and has had it put into his ownership.
2. Fraud would not apply here for the simple fact that no one was defrauded. the guidelines are not outdated, the players bank balance is an acceptable means of having the funds to bid. This is how it has always been
3. The Defendant states that since he bid that means he entered into the legally binding contract with the DCT, however to sight his own precedent, the judge in that cases asserts the legally binding contract is established after you win the auction
4. The plaintiff was not mislead nor was he defrauded, he simply lost an auction.

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 18th Day of November 2023

NOTE TO JUDGE: I no longer need the extension

 

[zLost]

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

The Plaintiff wishes to strike the entire motion to dismiss, as it does not state in anyway whatsoever why the case should be dismissed and is only giving arguments in the case, which should be placed in an answer to complaint instead of a motion to dismiss. Just because, according to the plaintiff, one of the two precedents mentioned here doesn't apply, doesn't mean that this case should be dismissed.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The motion to strike is rejected, however the plaintiff may respond to the motion within 72 hours.

 

[zLost]

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

The plaintiff will argue each point brought by the Commonwealth:

1. The commonwealth request that this case be dismissed on multiple reasons, firstly the case law that has been quoted by the defendant as precedent would not apply here in the slightest. The two cases that were quoted here where about nonpayment of for the plots. The person in question here has paid for the plot and has had it put into his ownership.

While yes, the situations are a bit different, both the cases state that a contract is made when someone bids on an auction. These two statements are stated in both cases:
"An auction does constitute a legally binding contract between two parties."
"it is clear that in general, Auctions and their bids, at least within the DC Bids server, are considered to be legally binding contracts."
What the Defendant mentions is the judges stating a term of the contract that is constituted, which is that the bidder has to pay for the auction they won.

2. Fraud would not apply here for the simple fact that no one was defrauded. the guidelines are not outdated, the players bank balance is an acceptable means of having the funds to bid. This is how it has always been.

The terms state:
In the instance that a bid is made on behalf of a company, such must be made apparent in the bid itself.
A bank, is infact a company, as they have to go through all the same procedure as a normal company and are registered as companies according to the DOS. Bombaz2005 had not made it apparent that they were bidding on behalf of a company in their bid.

3. The Defendant states that since he bid that means he entered into the legally binding contract with the DCT, however to sight his own precedent, the judge in that cases asserts the legally binding contract is established after you win the auction

Like the Plaintiff mentioned earlier, the Precedent states a term of the contract formed, which is that you need to pay the auctioneer the money you bid as the bidder after winning.

4. The plaintiff was not mislead nor was he defrauded, he simply lost an auction.
The Plaintiff would like to state that we are arguing that we should've won, or did win as the Commonwealth keeps changing their mind on whether or not the guidelines were outdated. If the guidelines were not outdated, then the Plaintiff is arguing they they won. If the guidelines were outdated, then the Plaintiff is arguing that they should've won if they weren't misrepresented by the Commonwealth.

 

[zLost]

The Plaintiff would like to bring it to the attention of the court that it has been 72 hours and no Answer to Complaint has been filed.

 

[zLost]

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor, the Commonwealth stated:
Fraud would not apply here for the simple fact that no one was defrauded. the guidelines are not outdated, the players bank balance is an acceptable means of having the funds to bid. This is how it has always been

But in this screenshot ko531 states that the guidelines don't apply anymore:

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss. It provides defenses and does not allege the case is frivolous or inaccurate.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor, the Commonwealth stated:
Fraud would not apply here for the simple fact that no one was defrauded. the guidelines are not outdated, the players bank balance is an acceptable means of having the funds to bid. This is how it has always been

But in this screenshot ko531 states that the guidelines don't apply anymore:
View attachment 39021

The Commonwealth may respond to this objection within 48 hours.

In addition, the plaintiff has 72 hours from this point to file their opening statement.

 

[zLost]

The Plaintiff would like to motion for summary judgement after opening statements.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The Plaintiff would like to motion for summary judgement after opening statements.

Okay, does the defense agree?

 

[SumoMC]

Okay, does the defense agree?

the defense does not agree

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you.

 

[zLost]

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

Your Honor, the Plaintiff is confused as to whether the guidelines are outdated or not, and this is information needed for our opening statement, and the Commonwealth hasn't responded to the objection for perjury, we would like to know whether the guidelines are outdated or not.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I would like to request a 12 hour extension as I've had to study for my exams for the past week and didn't have time to formulate an opening statement. I would also like to request that our time to post an opening statement is paused until the motion to compel is accepted or denied and if its accepted, until we get the knowledge of whether the guidelines were outdated or not.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I will grant the motion to compel, the Commonwealth or a representative of the DCT will be required to respond within 24 hours to whether or not the guidelines were outdated. In addition I will be accepting the defendant’s request for extension, they have until 9:36 PM EST tomorrow to present their opening statement, but I will be rejecting the request to pause the time.

 

[zLost]

As the option statement entirely depends on whether the guidelines were outdated or not, the Plaintiff has provided two opening statements. Please consider the opening statement which applies after the Commonwealth has given their answer of whether the guidelines were outdated or not.

Spoiler: OPENING STATEMENT: GUIDELINES OUTDATED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, we are arguing that I should have won had the guidelines not been outdated. As the Plaintiff bid on an auction by the DCT, they entered into a contract with the DCT for which terms were listed under Guidelines in the channel. There has been countless precedent which states that bidding on an auction constitutes a contract, which the Plaintiff has listed earlier.

But, after the Plaintiff had won the auction, the DCT declared that after the auction ended that the Guidelines were outdated as they were from back when the DOC had jurisdiction over #real-estate. Thus, the plaintiff was frauded as the DCT had misrepresented the terms of their contract. The DCT failed to remove or to request staff to remove the old guidelines in a timely manner, and almost nowhere was it stated that these guidelines were outdated. It's also almost nowhere to be written that #real-estate is under the jurisdiction of the DCT, so it was fair for the Plaintiff to assume that the DOC still has jurisdiction over #real-estate and that it was just a fork of #marketplace, especially since the guidelines state: "Breaking these rules can warrant in punishment to the DOC Secretaries discretion"

The definition of fraud according to the White-Collar Crackdown Act is:
an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.

Let's see if what happened meets all requirements for Fraud.

i. an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact
What happened meets this requirement, as the DCT recklessly never mentioned that the guidelines were outdated. If I had known that the guidelines were outdated, I would've continued bidding.

ii. to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation
The Plaintiff relied on the now stated to be outdated guidelines as they believed that they had won based on those guidelines.
iii. the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.
The Plaintiff missed out on the chance of winning c610 due to this misrepresentation. As such, this requirement is also met.

Spoiler: OPENING STATEMENTS: GUIDELINES ARE NOT OUTDATED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth has stated:
Fraud would not apply here for the simple fact that no one was defrauded. the guidelines are not outdated, the players bank balance is an acceptable means of having the funds to bid. This is how it has always been.

While yes, bank balances are an acceptable means of having the funds to bid, you still have to specify that you are bidding from your bank balance. The reason is that the guidelines state:
In the instance that a bid is made on behalf of a company, such must be made apparent in the bid itself.

The guidelines don't specify that you have to state that you're bidding from your own company. Banks themselves are companies, as they are registered as companies on the forums, and according to the Clarity Act, they meet the definition of a company according to Oxford Dictionary:
a business organization that makes money by producing or selling goods or services

A bank is a business that sells services such as keeping your money safe, giving you money in the form of interest the longer you keep your money with them, loaning you money, and a bank makes money off of these services. Thus, banks are companies and you have to specify that you are bidding on behalf of them.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, it has been 24 hours and the Commonwealth has not responded. Along with this, the Commonwealth has also not responded to the objection for perjury.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The Commonwealth of Redmont is hereby charged with contempt of court and is to be fined/jailed appropriately. SumoMC is hereby charged with perjury and is to be fined $2500. The objection for perjury is sustained and the statement saying the guidelines were outdated is hereby struck from the record.

 

[zLost]

The Commonwealth of Redmont is hereby charged with contempt of court and is to be fined/jailed appropriately. SumoMC is hereby charged with perjury and is to be fined $2500. The objection for perjury is sustained and the statement saying the guidelines were outdated is hereby struck from the record.

Your Honor, the statement stated that the guidelines were NOT outdated, not that they were outdated. Is this a typo?

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor, the statement stated that the guidelines were NOT outdated, not that they were outdated. Is this a typo?

This is indeed a typo, my apologies.

 

[SumoMC]

The Commonwealth of Redmont is hereby charged with contempt of court and is to be fined/jailed appropriately. SumoMC is hereby charged with perjury and is to be fined $2500. The objection for perjury is sustained and the statement saying the guidelines were outdated is hereby struck from the record.

Your Honor,

Motion to reconsider, it’s a holiday for most people supposed to be spent with family and having a deadline end on a holiday is absurd. The commonwealth asks that the court grant 24 hours from now to ensure that all sides get adequate time. Tomorrow is a holiday and I have been working overtime these last few days.

The Commonwealth also moves to have the perjury charge removed entirely due to the fact, the judge presiding over this case did not adequately read the law. The judge can sustain a motion for perjury, however, perjury is an indictable offense meaning they cannot find me without me, being formally charged, and a case being brought before their court As the Attorney General, it is to department of legal affairs job to indict the courts.

We thank the court for their time

 

[SumoMC]

MOTION TO RECUSE

The Commonwealth of Redmont formally request that the presiding judge Masked recuse themselves from this case. The Commonwealth does not believe that we will get a fair nor adequate trial with this judge presiding. The judge is already shown a lack of knowledge of the law. When it comes to sentencing and objections and commonwealth, cannot risk such as this. It is the power of the DLA to indict not the court.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, may I respond to the motion to recuse? I believe I have important information that the court must consider in the motion to recuse. I require no more time than 24 hours.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor, may I respond to the motion to recuse? I believe I have important information that the court must consider in the motion to recuse. I require no more time than 24 hours.

You may present additional information on this motion within 24 hours.

 

[zLost]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECUSE

In the Supreme Court, this exact same argument was made and it was overruled, which is precedent that this does not apply. As such, the Presiding Judge has done nothing wrong but follow precedent.

Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21

There is also precedent in the District Court that you can charge for Perjury in an ongoing court case.

Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth Of Redmont v. zLost [2023] DCR 27

Along with this, in the Standardized Criminal Code Act, this is said about Indictable Criminal Offences:
"Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offense must be proven in a trial."

It does not state it must be a trial specifically for that Indictable Criminal Offence, it simply states that it must be proven in a trial. This court case is a trial, and in this trial the Plaintiff proved the Commonwealth committed perjury.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor the Commonwealth of Redmont wishes to be afforded the same opportunity to respond

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor the Commonwealth of Redmont wishes to be afforded the same opportunity to respond

Rejected, you cannot respond to a response. Anything you wanted to say should have been said in the original motion.

 

[SumoMC]

Rejected, you cannot respond to a response. Anything you wanted to say should have been said in the original motion.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Commonwealth of Redmont request that you reconsider your position on this, as they made new claims with precedent that doesn’t apply

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Commonwealth of Redmont request that you reconsider your position on this, as they made new claims with precedent that doesn’t apply

What new claims did they make?

 

[SumoMC]

What new claims did they make?

Example A does not apply precedent as the decision was made after multiple warnings, this case only attributes a single warning, Example B does not apply precedent because there is no admission of guilt, and therefore cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Proven in trial refers to the full due process, not a singular statement when an extension was requested and ignored - therefore it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Defense is guilty of perjury.

In addition to this, point 2 (v) states: (v) The prosecuting authority must be represented by a Prosecutor. The defendant must have representation or have declared they are representing themselves. - neither Plaintiff nor the Presiding Magistrate qualify as a 'Prosecutor' and the lack of representation or declaration of representation by Sumo makes this 'trial' illegitimate.

Furthermore, your honor was out of line with current court room rules and procedure as we have to be afforded 72 hours for responses as that is the default deadline. Your honor gave me 24 hours to respond to that in which fell on a holiday plus 48 hours to gather an opening statement in which also fell on a holiday.

EDIT: Screenshot didnt load in the first time

 

[zLost]

OBJECTION
Relevance

None of what the Commonwealth said answers what the judge asked, these are just defences to everything I said. As such, all of this should be striked.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Objection and motion to strike are sustained. SumoMC, I will not afford you another opportunity to respond to this in the interest of a speedy and fair trial, along with the fact you cannot respond to responses.

I will be rejecting the motion to recuse. It alleges I have not read a law (which I can assure you that I have, along with precedent) and I do believe I have sufficient legal knowledge to continue as presiding magistrate.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Commonwealth of Redmont request that you reconsider your position on this, as they made new claims with precedent that doesn’t apply

Again, you may not respond to responses. The motion to reconsider is rejected.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honor,

Motion to reconsider, it’s a holiday for most people supposed to be spent with family and having a deadline end on a holiday is absurd. The commonwealth asks that the court grant 24 hours from now to ensure that all sides get adequate time. Tomorrow is a holiday and I have been working overtime these last few days.

The Commonwealth also moves to have the perjury charge removed entirely due to the fact, the judge presiding over this case did not adequately read the law. The judge can sustain a motion for perjury, however, perjury is an indictable offense meaning they cannot find me without me, being formally charged, and a case being brought before their court As the Attorney General, it is to department of legal affairs job to indict the courts.

We thank the court for their time

I will reject the motion to reconsider. Anyone on the Commonwealth’s legal team or any representative of the DCT was authorized to respond. On the basis of the perjury charge, there is precedent such as Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21 where xEndeavour was charged with perjury by the courts in a trial, and 2023 DCR 16, when the courts charged zLost with perjury, which was later appealed to the federal court. The federal court agreed that the district court could charge zLost with perjury. We will now move onto the defense’s opening statement, which is to be filed within 72 hours.

 

[SumoMC]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

As it has become increasingly apparent that the Commonwealth will not be getting a fair trial, we hereby motion for a Summary Judgment.

 

[zLost]

The Plaintiff agrees with the motion for summary judgement.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The court will go into recess pending a summary judgement.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

It has been a week and still no verdict. In the spirt of a speedy trial can we get an update.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I have finished deliberating and a verdict is currently being written.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 48


I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT) entered into a legally binding contract with the plaintiff when he bid on an auction
2. The guidelines were outdated but should still apply
3. The guidelines said that a player may only bid what is in their company, bank, or in-game balance
4. Another player bidding bid an amount while not following these guidelines

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. A player’s bank balance can be used to bid
2. The precedent cited states that the contract is entered after one wins the auction

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the person who won the auction could have had the sufficient bank balance to make the payment
2. The court agrees a contract is entered into when a bid is made as long as bidders are bound by their bid (i.e. you can’t delete your bid, modify your bid, etc.)

IV. DECISION
1. The court rules in favor of the defense
2. The injunction is lifted
3. The DCT is hereby ordered to update their auction guidelines within 7 days (EDIT: Clarified what guidelines needed to be updated)

The District Court thanks zLost, SumoMC, and Taelor.